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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening assessment proceedings u/s 147 and issuing notice u/s 148 based on information from the Annual Information Return (AIR) about substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient tangible material to reopen the case and the assessee's contention regarding non-supply of AIR information details was rejected. Regarding the additions made u/ss 69A and 69 for unexplained money and investments, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's grounds. Considering the decision in CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill, the Tribunal estimated 10% of the cash credits of Rs. 43,99,215 and other credits of Rs. 1.70 lacs as the assessee's reasonable income to avoid revenue leakage, instead of treating the entire transactions as income.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening assessment proceedings u/s 147 and issuing notice u/s 148 based on information from the Annual Information Return (AIR) about substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient tangible material to reopen the case and the assessee's contention regarding non-supply of AIR information details was rejected. Regarding the additions made u/ss 69A and 69 for unexplained money and investments, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's grounds. Considering the decision in CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill, the Tribunal estimated 10% of the cash credits of Rs. 43,99,215 and other credits of Rs. 1.70 lacs as the assessee's reasonable income to avoid revenue leakage, instead of treating the entire transactions as income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
