Mis-declaration in import descriptions must be deliberate to justify confiscation; withheld contemporaneous import documents invalidate value redeterm...
Liability for EPCG export shortfall: duty and interest sustained, but confiscation and penalties quashed where no fraud and causes beyond importer con...
Where the assessee failed to produce cogent evidence of employment, salary receipt, commission or brokerage, the Tribunal upheld denial of the claimed standard deduction and treated the returned income as unexplained money under section 69A for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21. By contrast, where the assessee had opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AD and produced confirmations, sample bills and related business details, the Tribunal accepted that rice trading business was carried on and held that the same receipts could not again be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A, as that would amount to double taxation. The section 69A addition was deleted for A.Y. 2022-23, and the rice trading finding was applied for A.Y. 2021-22.
Where the assessee failed to produce cogent evidence of employment, salary receipt, commission or brokerage, the Tribunal upheld denial of the claimed standard deduction and treated the returned income as unexplained money under section 69A for A.Ys. 2019-20 and 2020-21. By contrast, where the assessee had opted for presumptive taxation under section 44AD and produced confirmations, sample bills and related business details, the Tribunal accepted that rice trading business was carried on and held that the same receipts could not again be taxed as unexplained money under section 69A, as that would amount to double taxation. The section 69A addition was deleted for A.Y. 2022-23, and the rice trading finding was applied for A.Y. 2021-22.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
