Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Reopening of assessment - reasons for re-opening within or beyond 4 years - reasons to believe - The court specifically pointed out that the information used from the DRI and the Shah Commission reports was not adequately scrutinized independently by the assessing officers to form a reasonable belief of tax evasion. The court noted that the decision of the Supreme Court, which found mining leases post-2007 to be illegal, could not retroactively make previous business activities illegal for tax purposes. The court emphasized that such interpretations were not known or could not have been known by the taxpayers at the time of filing their returns.
Reopening of assessment - reasons for re-opening within or beyond 4 years - reasons to believe - The court specifically pointed out that the information used from the DRI and the Shah Commission reports was not adequately scrutinized independently by the assessing officers to form a reasonable belief of tax evasion. The court noted that the decision of the Supreme Court, which found mining leases post-2007 to be illegal, could not retroactively make previous business activities illegal for tax purposes. The court emphasized that such interpretations were not known or could not have been known by the taxpayers at the time of filing their returns.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.