Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Section 251(1) enhancement power was confined to matters or sources of income considered by the Assessing Officer; the CIT(A) could not introduce a fresh issue by reducing work-in-progress on a point never examined in assessment, so the enhancement was invalid and reversed. Receipts under the joint development arrangement were treated as security deposits and business receipts, not loans or advances, and deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) could be taxed only in the hands of a shareholder; as the assessee was neither a registered nor beneficial shareholder, the addition was deleted. For the joint development agreement, the asset was stock-in-trade and income had to be measured by the consideration actually receivable under the arrangement, not by stamp duty value of the entire land parcel, so the protective addition for alleged extra consideration was affirmed as deleted.
Section 251(1) enhancement power was confined to matters or sources of income considered by the Assessing Officer; the CIT(A) could not introduce a fresh issue by reducing work-in-progress on a point never examined in assessment, so the enhancement was invalid and reversed. Receipts under the joint development arrangement were treated as security deposits and business receipts, not loans or advances, and deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) could be taxed only in the hands of a shareholder; as the assessee was neither a registered nor beneficial shareholder, the addition was deleted. For the joint development agreement, the asset was stock-in-trade and income had to be measured by the consideration actually receivable under the arrangement, not by stamp duty value of the entire land parcel, so the protective addition for alleged extra consideration was affirmed as deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
