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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Sections 144C and 153 require harmonious construction when determining limitation for a final assessment made pursuant to DRP directions. The non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) does not displace the outer time limit under section 153; the final assessment must therefore be completed within that prescribed limitation period. Applying the binding High Court precedent, the ITAT treated the final assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 as time-barred and quashed it. Merits grounds remained open, with liberty to seek revival if a Supreme Court decision requires modification.
Sections 144C and 153 require harmonious construction when determining limitation for a final assessment made pursuant to DRP directions. The non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) does not displace the outer time limit under section 153; the final assessment must therefore be completed within that prescribed limitation period. Applying the binding High Court precedent, the ITAT treated the final assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 as time-barred and quashed it. Merits grounds remained open, with liberty to seek revival if a Supreme Court decision requires modification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
