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...
Faceless reassessment under the IT Act was challenged on the ground that the notice under section 148 had to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer and not the jurisdictional officer for alleged non-compliance with section 151A. Without deciding that merits question, the Court directed revival of the pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), permitted the petitioner to raise all grounds including limitation, stayed operation of the assessment order during the appeal, and ordered expeditious disposal.
Faceless reassessment under the IT Act was challenged on the ground that the notice under section 148 had to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer and not the jurisdictional officer for alleged non-compliance with section 151A. Without deciding that merits question, the Court directed revival of the pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), permitted the petitioner to raise all grounds including limitation, stayed operation of the assessment order during the appeal, and ordered expeditious disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.