Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT ruled against reopening of assessment under s.147 beyond four-year limitation period, finding no independent application of mind by AO or CIT(A). The tribunal rejected additions under s.68 regarding alleged accommodation entries, as the assessee provided sufficient evidence including ledger copies, invoices, and transport details for genuine business transactions. The revenue authorities' reliance on Investigation Unit's information without allowing cross-examination was deemed improper. The tribunal also dismissed allegations of unexplained commission payments for accommodation entries, noting the transactions were legitimate sales receipts from previous year, not undisclosed loans or share capital. Additions made purely on third-party information without corroborating evidence were set aside.
ITAT ruled against reopening of assessment under s.147 beyond four-year limitation period, finding no independent application of mind by AO or CIT(A). The tribunal rejected additions under s.68 regarding alleged accommodation entries, as the assessee provided sufficient evidence including ledger copies, invoices, and transport details for genuine business transactions. The revenue authorities' reliance on Investigation Unit's information without allowing cross-examination was deemed improper. The tribunal also dismissed allegations of unexplained commission payments for accommodation entries, noting the transactions were legitimate sales receipts from previous year, not undisclosed loans or share capital. Additions made purely on third-party information without corroborating evidence were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.