Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6181 to 6200 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Appeal under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit re appreciation of evidence or concurrent findings of fact; appeal dismissed to the extent it sought such re examination. The Revenue discharged its initial burden by issuing notices to counterparties and obtaining denials or non service, which constituted substantial evidence and shifted the onus to the appellant to produce creditworthy documents or witnesses; appellant failed to do so, so findings of bogus transactions were supportable. No procedural prejudice was shown as there is no record of a refused request to cross examine and the appellant did not produce parties or evidence.
Appeal under Section 260A is confined to substantial questions of law and does not permit re appreciation of evidence or concurrent findings of fact; appeal dismissed to the extent it sought such re examination. The Revenue discharged its initial burden by issuing notices to counterparties and obtaining denials or non service, which constituted substantial evidence and shifted the onus to the appellant to produce creditworthy documents or witnesses; appellant failed to do so, so findings of bogus transactions were supportable. No procedural prejudice was shown as there is no record of a refused request to cross examine and the appellant did not produce parties or evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.