Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
