Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
ITAT ruled on income computation under Section 11(1) for a charitable trust manufacturing artificial limbs. Revenue generated from manufacturing activities qualifies as eligible income for accumulation purposes, considering the trust's primary objective of serving disabled persons with affordable prosthetics. The Tribunal directed 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) to be calculated on gross receipts. However, loans received under ADIP and ADIP-SSA schemes were excluded from income computation under Section 11(1), though they can be considered as application of income during utilization year. The trust exceeded the 85% income utilization requirement during the assessment year. Ground nos. 2 and 3 were allowed, while ground no. 4 was dismissed.
ITAT ruled on income computation under Section 11(1) for a charitable trust manufacturing artificial limbs. Revenue generated from manufacturing activities qualifies as eligible income for accumulation purposes, considering the trust's primary objective of serving disabled persons with affordable prosthetics. The Tribunal directed 15% accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) to be calculated on gross receipts. However, loans received under ADIP and ADIP-SSA schemes were excluded from income computation under Section 11(1), though they can be considered as application of income during utilization year. The trust exceeded the 85% income utilization requirement during the assessment year. Ground nos. 2 and 3 were allowed, while ground no. 4 was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.