Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
ITAT allowed the appeal, setting aside both AO and CIT(A) orders due to procedural irregularities. The appellate authority failed to adjudicate issues on merits as mandated under Section 250(6), and the AO made additions without substantive inquiry into expense claims. The tribunal found no specific defects in the assessee's expense documentation and determined that neither the assessment order nor the appellate order was legally sustainable. The matter was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment, with the appeal allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring a comprehensive re-examination of the original expense claims and proportionate calculations.
ITAT allowed the appeal, setting aside both AO and CIT(A) orders due to procedural irregularities. The appellate authority failed to adjudicate issues on merits as mandated under Section 250(6), and the AO made additions without substantive inquiry into expense claims. The tribunal found no specific defects in the assessee's expense documentation and determined that neither the assessment order nor the appellate order was legally sustainable. The matter was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment, with the appeal allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring a comprehensive re-examination of the original expense claims and proportionate calculations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
