Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Reassessment within four years still required a live basis for "reason to believe"; the Court held that reopening cannot rest on a mere review of a concluded scrutiny assessment. Where the assessee had already replied to queries and furnished supporting material, those issues were treated as examined even if not expressly discussed in the assessment order. The reopening on deductions and depreciation claims was therefore a change of opinion, and the only asserted fresh basis, an audit objection, was not tangible material. The notice under Section 148 and the order rejecting objections were quashed as beyond jurisdiction.
Reassessment within four years still required a live basis for "reason to believe"; the Court held that reopening cannot rest on a mere review of a concluded scrutiny assessment. Where the assessee had already replied to queries and furnished supporting material, those issues were treated as examined even if not expressly discussed in the assessment order. The reopening on deductions and depreciation claims was therefore a change of opinion, and the only asserted fresh basis, an audit objection, was not tangible material. The notice under Section 148 and the order rejecting objections were quashed as beyond jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.