Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Validity of Reassessment proceedings - notice issued in the course of the reassessment proceedings not served on the assessee - The High Court examined the evidence presented, including copies of notices and postal tracking reports. It noted that all notices appeared to have been dispatched to the assessee but returned to the sender, the assessing officer. Despite this, the officer claimed the notices were served. The Court held that the mere dispatch of the assessment order to the same address did not prove due service of preceding notices. - Consequently, it set aside the assessment order and directed the petitioner to file detailed objections within a specified timeframe. The Court also allowed the assessing authority to reevaluate the issue of the firm's existence independently.
Validity of Reassessment proceedings - notice issued in the course of the reassessment proceedings not served on the assessee - The High Court examined the evidence presented, including copies of notices and postal tracking reports. It noted that all notices appeared to have been dispatched to the assessee but returned to the sender, the assessing officer. Despite this, the officer claimed the notices were served. The Court held that the mere dispatch of the assessment order to the same address did not prove due service of preceding notices. - Consequently, it set aside the assessment order and directed the petitioner to file detailed objections within a specified timeframe. The Court also allowed the assessing authority to reevaluate the issue of the firm's existence independently.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.