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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld the AO's addition under Section 69 as unexplained investment, rejecting the assessee's contentions. The tribunal found that the seized incriminating material carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act. The proceedings were governed by preponderance of probability, not criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The assessee's arguments regarding criminal court proceedings and natural justice were dismissed. The tribunal emphasized that the Income Tax Act is a complete code, and the department's findings were based on conclusive evidence. The impugned additions for multiple assessment years were sustained, with the decision rendered in favor of the revenue.
ITAT upheld the AO's addition under Section 69 as unexplained investment, rejecting the assessee's contentions. The tribunal found that the seized incriminating material carried a presumption of correctness under Section 292C of the Income Tax Act. The proceedings were governed by preponderance of probability, not criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The assessee's arguments regarding criminal court proceedings and natural justice were dismissed. The tribunal emphasized that the Income Tax Act is a complete code, and the department's findings were based on conclusive evidence. The impugned additions for multiple assessment years were sustained, with the decision rendered in favor of the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.