Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee's unexplained cash credits u/s 68 were deleted by the CIT(A) after accepting the submissions that the cash receipts from various sources like cash sales, realization of outstanding debtors, and current year debtors matched with the VAT returns. The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) received during demonetization, arising from cash sales during the relevant assessment year, realization of outstanding debtors from previous years, and current year debtors, as per the books of accounts. The assessee reconciled the cash sales, outstanding debtors with the VAT returns. Although the turnover increased significantly, the cash realization through sales and debtors was not abnormal. The assessee filed confirmed account statements before the Tribunal. Since the books of accounts and VAT returns were accepted, and no defect was found in the cash generation before November 8, 2016, the Tribunal held that the cash deposited in SBNs during demonetization stood explained. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal ruled that SBNs cannot be added when the source of cash is explained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The assessee's unexplained cash credits u/s 68 were deleted by the CIT(A) after accepting the submissions that the cash receipts from various sources like cash sales, realization of outstanding debtors, and current year debtors matched with the VAT returns. The Tribunal noted that the assessee explained the cash deposits in specified bank notes (SBNs) received during demonetization, arising from cash sales during the relevant assessment year, realization of outstanding debtors from previous years, and current year debtors, as per the books of accounts. The assessee reconciled the cash sales, outstanding debtors with the VAT returns. Although the turnover increased significantly, the cash realization through sales and debtors was not abnormal. The assessee filed confirmed account statements before the Tribunal. Since the books of accounts and VAT returns were accepted, and no defect was found in the cash generation before November 8, 2016, the Tribunal held that the cash deposited in SBNs during demonetization stood explained. Relying on a precedent, the Tribunal ruled that SBNs cannot be added when the source of cash is explained. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.