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...
AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding genuineness of loan transactions for property acquisition. Bank statements revealed assessee lacked funds, payments made through loans from two parties. AO accepted evidence without verification, neglecting examination of interest payment, TDS deduction on loans. AO's lack of inquiry rendered order erroneous, prejudicial to revenue interests, justifying CIT's revision u/s 263. Non-application of mind, incorrect assumptions or law application by AO makes order erroneous, prejudicial, validating CIT's revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. Decided against assessee.
AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding genuineness of loan transactions for property acquisition. Bank statements revealed assessee lacked funds, payments made through loans from two parties. AO accepted evidence without verification, neglecting examination of interest payment, TDS deduction on loans. AO's lack of inquiry rendered order erroneous, prejudicial to revenue interests, justifying CIT's revision u/s 263. Non-application of mind, incorrect assumptions or law application by AO makes order erroneous, prejudicial, validating CIT's revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. Decided against assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
