Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed Revenue's appeal. It held that amounts reflected in seized document BSIPL/01 represented investments of third parties and could not be treated as undisclosed sales or income u/s 69A; the document must be read as a whole and not selectively. Additions based solely on WhatsApp chats were deleted for want of corroborative evidence and on the footing that any presumption u/s 292C would arise, if at all, in the hands of the person from whose possession the chats originated. The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions on alleged bogus purchases, finding no extra profit, and deleted addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, noting complete evidentiary support and subsequent repayment.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal in part and dismissed Revenue's appeal. It held that amounts reflected in seized document BSIPL/01 represented investments of third parties and could not be treated as undisclosed sales or income u/s 69A; the document must be read as a whole and not selectively. Additions based solely on WhatsApp chats were deleted for want of corroborative evidence and on the footing that any presumption u/s 292C would arise, if at all, in the hands of the person from whose possession the chats originated. The Tribunal upheld deletion of additions on alleged bogus purchases, finding no extra profit, and deleted addition u/s 68 for unsecured loans, noting complete evidentiary support and subsequent repayment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.