Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Assessee, a non-resident Indian residing outside India for over 25 years, challenged the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer to issue notice u/s 148 for reassessment proceedings. Evidence showed assessee's residential status as NRI on the date of notice issuance. Faceless Assessment Unit also acknowledged the case pertained to a non-resident individual, requiring assessment at the international charge. ITAT held ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer lacked jurisdiction when issuing the notice on 30.03.2022, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gain without considering the original cost and evidence provided by the assessee, resulting in a perverse order, which ITAT quashed.
Assessee, a non-resident Indian residing outside India for over 25 years, challenged the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer to issue notice u/s 148 for reassessment proceedings. Evidence showed assessee's residential status as NRI on the date of notice issuance. Faceless Assessment Unit also acknowledged the case pertained to a non-resident individual, requiring assessment at the international charge. ITAT held ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer lacked jurisdiction when issuing the notice on 30.03.2022, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gain without considering the original cost and evidence provided by the assessee, resulting in a perverse order, which ITAT quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.