Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
A return filed in response to notice under section 148 was treated as a return under section 139, and if it was defective for want of e-verification, the Assessing Officer had to intimate the defect and allow cure under section 139(9). Once the Assessing Officer acted on that return, issuance of notice under section 143(2) became mandatory before framing reassessment. As no such notice was shown, the Tribunal held the reassessment bad in law and void ab initio, following earlier Delhi High Court decisions.
A return filed in response to notice under section 148 was treated as a return under section 139, and if it was defective for want of e-verification, the Assessing Officer had to intimate the defect and allow cure under section 139(9). Once the Assessing Officer acted on that return, issuance of notice under section 143(2) became mandatory before framing reassessment. As no such notice was shown, the Tribunal held the reassessment bad in law and void ab initio, following earlier Delhi High Court decisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.