Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Books of account of a project office cannot be rejected merely because no revenue was shown in the year and only expenditure was claimed; absent cogent material, such rejection is unsustainable, and the appellate deletion of its consequences was upheld. Additions made by treating a foreign exchange item as fees for technical services and by treating head office remittances as undisclosed income also failed because they were unsupported by substance or material evidence. The ITAT agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee's project-office receipts and remittances did not justify the impugned additions, and it dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Books of account of a project office cannot be rejected merely because no revenue was shown in the year and only expenditure was claimed; absent cogent material, such rejection is unsustainable, and the appellate deletion of its consequences was upheld. Additions made by treating a foreign exchange item as fees for technical services and by treating head office remittances as undisclosed income also failed because they were unsupported by substance or material evidence. The ITAT agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee's project-office receipts and remittances did not justify the impugned additions, and it dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
