Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A pure legal challenge to a reassessment notice was admitted in cross objection because it went to the root of jurisdiction and had already been raised below. On merits, the ITAT held that a reopening notice issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year was time-barred. Applying the jurisdictional High Court view, it ruled that the extended reassessment limitation under the amended law operates prospectively and does not revive cases where the old six-year period had already expired. The notice was quashed, the reassessment was invalidated, the assessee's cross objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal on merits failed.
A pure legal challenge to a reassessment notice was admitted in cross objection because it went to the root of jurisdiction and had already been raised below. On merits, the ITAT held that a reopening notice issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year was time-barred. Applying the jurisdictional High Court view, it ruled that the extended reassessment limitation under the amended law operates prospectively and does not revive cases where the old six-year period had already expired. The notice was quashed, the reassessment was invalidated, the assessee's cross objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal on merits failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
