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 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC upheld the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained income from sale of shares of Global Capital Markets Ltd. The HC held that the AO's addition was based solely on unsubstantiated third-party information regarding penny stock transactions, without disclosing the source or material to the assessee and without conducting any independent inquiry. The assessee had demonstrably purchased the shares in 2003 and sold them in 2010 through a recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, negating the allegation of short-term accommodation entries. As the transaction was supported by proper documentation and the Revenue failed to prove that the consideration was bogus or that the entities were fictitious, the HC found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
HC upheld the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained income from sale of shares of Global Capital Markets Ltd. The HC held that the AO's addition was based solely on unsubstantiated third-party information regarding penny stock transactions, without disclosing the source or material to the assessee and without conducting any independent inquiry. The assessee had demonstrably purchased the shares in 2003 and sold them in 2010 through a recognized stock exchange after payment of STT, negating the allegation of short-term accommodation entries. As the transaction was supported by proper documentation and the Revenue failed to prove that the consideration was bogus or that the entities were fictitious, the HC found no perversity in the CIT(A)'s reasoning and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
