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...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld invalid reassessment where the show-cause notice under the reopening procedure was not accompanied by the relied-upon material, despite the assessee's request, and held that RMS or Insight inputs did not dispense with independent verification, disclosure of material, or observance of natural justice. It further held that the appellate authority could test the legality of the reopening while hearing the reassessment appeal. Additions based on third-party seized papers, statements and loose sheets failed because the material was not properly furnished, cross-examination was denied, and the documents were uncorroborated. Section 69A was held inapplicable to alleged cash borrowing. Later-year notices were also held time-barred, so the consequential reassessments did not survive.
ITAT upheld invalid reassessment where the show-cause notice under the reopening procedure was not accompanied by the relied-upon material, despite the assessee's request, and held that RMS or Insight inputs did not dispense with independent verification, disclosure of material, or observance of natural justice. It further held that the appellate authority could test the legality of the reopening while hearing the reassessment appeal. Additions based on third-party seized papers, statements and loose sheets failed because the material was not properly furnished, cross-examination was denied, and the documents were uncorroborated. Section 69A was held inapplicable to alleged cash borrowing. Later-year notices were also held time-barred, so the consequential reassessments did not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
