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" ?
Validity of Faceless assessment u/s 144 r.w.s.144B - The High Court observed that the impugned order indeed failed to comply with the prescribed procedure under Section 144B of the Act. The absence of a proceeding shifting the assessment from the Central Assessment Circle to the regular assessment circle, as well as the failure to issue notices u/s 143(2) and 144B(1)(iii) of the Act, rendered the order invalid. The High Court observed that the combination of show cause notice and draft assessment order into a single document was procedurally incorrect. The court referenced a previous ruling that such a combination was impermissible, undermining the statutory framework designed to ensure transparency and accountability in assessments.
Validity of Faceless assessment u/s 144 r.w.s.144B - The High Court observed that the impugned order indeed failed to comply with the prescribed procedure under Section 144B of the Act. The absence of a proceeding shifting the assessment from the Central Assessment Circle to the regular assessment circle, as well as the failure to issue notices u/s 143(2) and 144B(1)(iii) of the Act, rendered the order invalid. The High Court observed that the combination of show cause notice and draft assessment order into a single document was procedurally incorrect. The court referenced a previous ruling that such a combination was impermissible, undermining the statutory framework designed to ensure transparency and accountability in assessments.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
