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...
The ITAT upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s decision to treat the excess stock found during the survey as business income, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The AO failed to produce cogent evidence of income from sources other than the jewellery business. The tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the separate ledger for old gold purchases, increasing the book stock and reducing the excess stock to 11,390.212 grams. The addition was restricted accordingly. Regarding valuation, the tribunal rejected the AO and ld.CIT(A)'s higher rate of Rs. 2,800 per gram and the assessee's lower rate of Rs. 2,296 per gram, adopting Rs. 2,409 per gram as agreed by the assessee in correspondence, to compute income from excess stock. This approach balanced the competing valuations and concluded the matter.
The ITAT upheld the ld.CIT(A)'s decision to treat the excess stock found during the survey as business income, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The AO failed to produce cogent evidence of income from sources other than the jewellery business. The tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the separate ledger for old gold purchases, increasing the book stock and reducing the excess stock to 11,390.212 grams. The addition was restricted accordingly. Regarding valuation, the tribunal rejected the AO and ld.CIT(A)'s higher rate of Rs. 2,800 per gram and the assessee's lower rate of Rs. 2,296 per gram, adopting Rs. 2,409 per gram as agreed by the assessee in correspondence, to compute income from excess stock. This approach balanced the competing valuations and concluded the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
