Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The ITAT upheld the validity of adjustments made in the intimation u/s 143(1) regarding the addition of payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due date. The assessee's objection that the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited case was applicable only for scrutiny assessments and not for processing returns u/s 143(1) was rejected. The intimation dated 31.03.2021, though communicated on 01.04.2021, was held not barred by limitation as the extended time limit for processing the return was till 31.01.2024. The nature of adjustment was properly reflected in the intimation, and the prior intimation regarding proposed adjustments was sent to the assessee's email account, which was legally valid. The assessee's contention of not receiving the prior intimation was dismissed, and the ITAT found the assessee had misrepresented facts.
The ITAT upheld the validity of adjustments made in the intimation u/s 143(1) regarding the addition of payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due date. The assessee's objection that the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited case was applicable only for scrutiny assessments and not for processing returns u/s 143(1) was rejected. The intimation dated 31.03.2021, though communicated on 01.04.2021, was held not barred by limitation as the extended time limit for processing the return was till 31.01.2024. The nature of adjustment was properly reflected in the intimation, and the prior intimation regarding proposed adjustments was sent to the assessee's email account, which was legally valid. The assessee's contention of not receiving the prior intimation was dismissed, and the ITAT found the assessee had misrepresented facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
