Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Where an assessee claims that receipts appearing in Form 26AS...
Timing mismatch in income recognition requires verification whether receipts were already taxed in an earlier year; matter remitted for fresh examination.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Where an assessee claims that receipts appearing in Form 26AS relate to an earlier year under accrual-based recognition, the crucial question is whether the same income was already taxed in that year, because double taxation of the same receipt is impermissible. The Tribunal found that the reconciliation between bills raised in the preceding year and current-year Form 26AS entries required factual verification. As adequate opportunity had not been given before the AO, and the appellate authority had not properly examined the earlier-year material, the matter was remitted for de novo verification. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the reconciliation with supporting third-party evidence.
Where an assessee claims that receipts appearing in Form 26AS relate to an earlier year under accrual-based recognition, the crucial question is whether the same income was already taxed in that year, because double taxation of the same receipt is impermissible. The Tribunal found that the reconciliation between bills raised in the preceding year and current-year Form 26AS entries required factual verification. As adequate opportunity had not been given before the AO, and the appellate authority had not properly examined the earlier-year material, the matter was remitted for de novo verification. The assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the reconciliation with supporting third-party evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
