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" ?
Reassessment under section 148 was quashed because the recorded reasons were vague, factually inconsistent and unsupported by an independent application of mind. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on portal information and investigation material alleging fictitious profit, but the reassessment order treated the same figure differently and failed to maintain the very basis on which jurisdiction was assumed. No live nexus was shown between the material and escapement of income, and the assessee's purchase, sale, bank and D-Mat records were not dislodged by adverse material. The reopening was held to rest on borrowed satisfaction, so the reassessment was unsustainable and the merits were not examined.
Reassessment under section 148 was quashed because the recorded reasons were vague, factually inconsistent and unsupported by an independent application of mind. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on portal information and investigation material alleging fictitious profit, but the reassessment order treated the same figure differently and failed to maintain the very basis on which jurisdiction was assumed. No live nexus was shown between the material and escapement of income, and the assessee's purchase, sale, bank and D-Mat records were not dislodged by adverse material. The reopening was held to rest on borrowed satisfaction, so the reassessment was unsustainable and the merits were not examined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.