Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
An inchoate agreement to sell, lacking execution by both parties and showing patent ambiguity, could not be treated as conclusive evidence of receipt of unaccounted on-money. The Tribunal held that an admission must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional, and that the seized document, without material particulars such as witness details or the drafter's identity and without the beneficiary's participation, did not justify an inference of undisclosed cash receipts. The additions based on that document were therefore deleted, and the consequential penalty was also deleted.
An inchoate agreement to sell, lacking execution by both parties and showing patent ambiguity, could not be treated as conclusive evidence of receipt of unaccounted on-money. The Tribunal held that an admission must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional, and that the seized document, without material particulars such as witness details or the drafter's identity and without the beneficiary's participation, did not justify an inference of undisclosed cash receipts. The additions based on that document were therefore deleted, and the consequential penalty was also deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
