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...
Faceless reassessment under section 147 read with section 144B was treated as a best judgment reassessment where the assessee did not comply with section 142(1) notices and did not properly respond to section 144 show-cause notices. On that footing, the proviso to section 251(1)(a), effective from 01.10.2024, permitted the appellate authority to set aside the assessment and remand it for fresh adjudication. The remand was upheld because the assessing officer had not verified the material and additional evidence had been filed in appeal, making de novo assessment with opportunity to the assessee justified. The Revenue's objection was rejected and the reassessment was sent back for fresh disposal.
Faceless reassessment under section 147 read with section 144B was treated as a best judgment reassessment where the assessee did not comply with section 142(1) notices and did not properly respond to section 144 show-cause notices. On that footing, the proviso to section 251(1)(a), effective from 01.10.2024, permitted the appellate authority to set aside the assessment and remand it for fresh adjudication. The remand was upheld because the assessing officer had not verified the material and additional evidence had been filed in appeal, making de novo assessment with opportunity to the assessee justified. The Revenue's objection was rejected and the reassessment was sent back for fresh disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
