Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
