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...
A prior unsuccessful revision under section 264 did not bar the assessee from pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, as the right of appeal is a substantive statutory right and no provision prohibited recourse to appeal after an earlier bona fide attempt at revision. The Tribunal also accepted sufficient cause for the delay before the first appellate authority and rejected the non-maintainability finding. On merits, cash deposits made during demonetisation were supported by bank records and supporting documents showing withdrawals for house construction and their later redeposit, so the addition under section 69A was held to rest on mere guesswork and was deleted.
A prior unsuccessful revision under section 264 did not bar the assessee from pursuing the statutory appellate remedy, as the right of appeal is a substantive statutory right and no provision prohibited recourse to appeal after an earlier bona fide attempt at revision. The Tribunal also accepted sufficient cause for the delay before the first appellate authority and rejected the non-maintainability finding. On merits, cash deposits made during demonetisation were supported by bank records and supporting documents showing withdrawals for house construction and their later redeposit, so the addition under section 69A was held to rest on mere guesswork and was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.