Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court quashed the reassessment order due to procedural defects. The Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections through a speaking order after issuing notice u/s 147, violating principles established in GKN Driveshafts case. The court rejected the department's attempt to rely on reasons mentioned in the approval granted u/s 151, as it was impermissible after passing the assessment order. The Assessing Officer adopted different approaches, furnishing different reasons to the assessee and Joint Commissioner, and proceeded without disposing of objections, acting against revenue's interest. The court questioned the Assessing Officer's reckless actions leading to potential revenue loss and sought scrutiny of such officers' performance by higher authorities.
The High Court quashed the reassessment order due to procedural defects. The Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections through a speaking order after issuing notice u/s 147, violating principles established in GKN Driveshafts case. The court rejected the department's attempt to rely on reasons mentioned in the approval granted u/s 151, as it was impermissible after passing the assessment order. The Assessing Officer adopted different approaches, furnishing different reasons to the assessee and Joint Commissioner, and proceeded without disposing of objections, acting against revenue's interest. The court questioned the Assessing Officer's reckless actions leading to potential revenue loss and sought scrutiny of such officers' performance by higher authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
