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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under section 68 concerning unexplained share capital and share premium credits, finding the assessee successfully demonstrated these were earlier credited funds transferred via journal entries among related parties, with no fresh funds introduced during the relevant year. Consequently, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. However, regarding advances shown under other liabilities, the CIT(A) accepted fresh evidence without remanding the matter to the AO for verification of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties, violating procedural requirements. The ITAT agreed with the revenue that the issue required reconsideration and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, mandating further examination of the advances' legitimacy.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions under section 68 concerning unexplained share capital and share premium credits, finding the assessee successfully demonstrated these were earlier credited funds transferred via journal entries among related parties, with no fresh funds introduced during the relevant year. Consequently, the revenue's appeal on this ground was dismissed. However, regarding advances shown under other liabilities, the CIT(A) accepted fresh evidence without remanding the matter to the AO for verification of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the parties, violating procedural requirements. The ITAT agreed with the revenue that the issue required reconsideration and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, mandating further examination of the advances' legitimacy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
