Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
AAAR declined to rule on the exemption claim for dredging and desilting services because the same transaction and period were already covered by a notice and adjudication order under section 73. It held that deciding the exemption issue in the advance ruling appeal could prejudice the statutory remedies available against that order, so judicial propriety required restraint. The Authority therefore left all substantive questions open, including the claimed exemption under Entry 3 or 3A, for determination in the appropriate appellate proceedings arising from the adjudication order.
AAAR declined to rule on the exemption claim for dredging and desilting services because the same transaction and period were already covered by a notice and adjudication order under section 73. It held that deciding the exemption issue in the advance ruling appeal could prejudice the statutory remedies available against that order, so judicial propriety required restraint. The Authority therefore left all substantive questions open, including the claimed exemption under Entry 3 or 3A, for determination in the appropriate appellate proceedings arising from the adjudication order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.