Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 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 4819 
Join Channel 
