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...
ITAT ruled against the addition made under section 69 regarding unexplained investment in Oberoi Reality property. The assessee had provided complete documentation, banking channel evidence, and proper explanations for the property purchase made in 2010. The tribunal found that AO and DRP failed to specify valid grounds for rejecting the submitted evidence. Since the property was purchased in 2010 with major payments made that year, the addition in AY 2018-19 was inappropriate. The tribunal also emphasized that money brought to India by non-residents for investment purposes is not taxable when proper remittance evidence exists through banking channels. The appeal was allowed, and the addition was deleted.
ITAT ruled against the addition made under section 69 regarding unexplained investment in Oberoi Reality property. The assessee had provided complete documentation, banking channel evidence, and proper explanations for the property purchase made in 2010. The tribunal found that AO and DRP failed to specify valid grounds for rejecting the submitted evidence. Since the property was purchased in 2010 with major payments made that year, the addition in AY 2018-19 was inappropriate. The tribunal also emphasized that money brought to India by non-residents for investment purposes is not taxable when proper remittance evidence exists through banking channels. The appeal was allowed, and the addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
