Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was not available where the assessment in limited scrutiny was completed after the assessee disclosed the survey declaration and responded to section 142(1) notices, and the Assessing Officer considered those materials. Applying Malabar Industrial and Arvind Jewellers, revision lies only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; a mere difference of opinion on the same material is insufficient. On the facts found, no such error was shown, so the Tribunal was right to quash the revisional order and no substantial question of law arose.
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was not available where the assessment in limited scrutiny was completed after the assessee disclosed the survey declaration and responded to section 142(1) notices, and the Assessing Officer considered those materials. Applying Malabar Industrial and Arvind Jewellers, revision lies only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; a mere difference of opinion on the same material is insufficient. On the facts found, no such error was shown, so the Tribunal was right to quash the revisional order and no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.