Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
Where a faceless reassessment effectively operates as a best judgment assessment because the assessee does not comply with section 142(1) notices and does not adequately to section 144 show-cause notices, the Commissioner (Appeals) may set aside the matter and remit it for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 251(1)(a), inserted from 1 October 2024, expressly permits such a remand in appeals against orders made under section 144. As additional evidence in the form of e-way bills had been filed and the assessee alleged inadequate opportunity, the remand was held proper. The Revenue's challenge failed and the remand order was upheld.
Where a faceless reassessment effectively operates as a best judgment assessment because the assessee does not comply with section 142(1) notices and does not adequately to section 144 show-cause notices, the Commissioner (Appeals) may set aside the matter and remit it for fresh assessment. The Tribunal noted that the proviso to section 251(1)(a), inserted from 1 October 2024, expressly permits such a remand in appeals against orders made under section 144. As additional evidence in the form of e-way bills had been filed and the assessee alleged inadequate opportunity, the remand was held proper. The Revenue's challenge failed and the remand order was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.