Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 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.