Country of Origin Certificates and declared transaction value supported preferential customs exemption where authenticity and invoice prices remained ...
Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT found that the addition relating to alleged immovable property transactions was made without proper verification of the basic facts, particularly because the assessment record showed inconsistency in how the same properties were treated and the AO had shifted between possible taxability under section 56(2)(x) and section 50C. The Tribunal noted that no addition was ultimately made under section 56(2)(x), while the section 50C addition rested on an unverified factual foundation, and the assessee's cancellation claim was unsupported by the record. The matter was therefore restored to the jurisdictional AO for fresh examination and re-adjudication on evidence and enquiry.
The ITAT found that the addition relating to alleged immovable property transactions was made without proper verification of the basic facts, particularly because the assessment record showed inconsistency in how the same properties were treated and the AO had shifted between possible taxability under section 56(2)(x) and section 50C. The Tribunal noted that no addition was ultimately made under section 56(2)(x), while the section 50C addition rested on an unverified factual foundation, and the assessee's cancellation claim was unsupported by the record. The matter was therefore restored to the jurisdictional AO for fresh examination and re-adjudication on evidence and enquiry.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
