Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Addition u/s 68 was made for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period. Assessee submitted detailed cash sales and deposits, demonstrating all deposits were from cash sales. AO rejected, observing SBN was banned from 09.11.2016. However, as per Ordinance, prohibition on holding SBN was after 31.12.2016, not 08.11.2016. Therefore, addition u/s 68 was dismissed. Regarding salary expenditure to brother of Director, it was allowed as he is a regular key employee and salary was disclosed in returns. However, salaries to sister-in-law and wife of Director were disallowed due to lack of evidence of employment and services rendered. The ITAT partly allowed Revenue's grounds.
Addition u/s 68 was made for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period. Assessee submitted detailed cash sales and deposits, demonstrating all deposits were from cash sales. AO rejected, observing SBN was banned from 09.11.2016. However, as per Ordinance, prohibition on holding SBN was after 31.12.2016, not 08.11.2016. Therefore, addition u/s 68 was dismissed. Regarding salary expenditure to brother of Director, it was allowed as he is a regular key employee and salary was disclosed in returns. However, salaries to sister-in-law and wife of Director were disallowed due to lack of evidence of employment and services rendered. The ITAT partly allowed Revenue's grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
