Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The Appellate Tribunal considered an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 and an application for additional evidence. The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed u/s 144 and the assessee provided an explanation for non-appearance, the CIT (A) should have considered the request for additional evidence. The Tribunal found the additional evidence crucial for deciding the case, especially regarding the claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). As a result, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the CIT (A) for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to support their claim. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case, and the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Appellate Tribunal considered an ex-parte assessment u/s 144 and an application for additional evidence. The Tribunal held that since the assessment was completed u/s 144 and the assessee provided an explanation for non-appearance, the CIT (A) should have considered the request for additional evidence. The Tribunal found the additional evidence crucial for deciding the case, especially regarding the claim for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad). As a result, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter to the CIT (A) for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to support their claim. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case, and the assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
