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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
521 to 540 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Assessment was held time-barred where clause (xii) of Explanation 1 to section 153 operated only as an exclusion of the period during which seized material was unavailable within the running limitation period, not as an enlargement of the total time for assessment; the order passed after the outer date was quashed. On merits, additions based on third-party seized cash entries were deleted because the material came from other entities, the witness retracted the earlier statement, and no independent corroboration connected the assessee to any cash receipt. Digital entries from a pen drive were inadmissible without a valid section 65B certificate, and presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C did not apply against the assessee. Section 56(2)(x) failed because actual receipt without consideration was not proved.
Assessment was held time-barred where clause (xii) of Explanation 1 to section 153 operated only as an exclusion of the period during which seized material was unavailable within the running limitation period, not as an enlargement of the total time for assessment; the order passed after the outer date was quashed. On merits, additions based on third-party seized cash entries were deleted because the material came from other entities, the witness retracted the earlier statement, and no independent corroboration connected the assessee to any cash receipt. Digital entries from a pen drive were inadmissible without a valid section 65B certificate, and presumptions under sections 132(4A) and 292C did not apply against the assessee. Section 56(2)(x) failed because actual receipt without consideration was not proved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
