Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
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...
The case involves the validity of reopening assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer must have 'reasons to believe' as per the statutory scheme. The court emphasized the need to provide all information to the assessee for defense. Adjudication on information available with AO not required at the stage of passing order u/s 148A(d). The merits of the information are subject to appeal u/s 246A. The petitioner claimed no knowledge of sale by power of attorney holder, but the court held that the petitioner is bound by the actions of the power of attorney holder. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is for public law remedy. The court dismissed the writ petition.
The case involves the validity of reopening assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer must have 'reasons to believe' as per the statutory scheme. The court emphasized the need to provide all information to the assessee for defense. Adjudication on information available with AO not required at the stage of passing order u/s 148A(d). The merits of the information are subject to appeal u/s 246A. The petitioner claimed no knowledge of sale by power of attorney holder, but the court held that the petitioner is bound by the actions of the power of attorney holder. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is for public law remedy. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
