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 pertains to the assumption of jurisdiction u/ss 147/148 read with section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 instead of the statutory path available u/s 153C. The case was reopened beyond the period of four years based on information received from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, alleging bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and addition u/s 68 on account of share capital treated as an accommodation entry. The Tribunal held that the AO's reluctance to initiate reopening proceedings based on generalized and uncorroborated information, and the issuance of notice u/s 148 on the last day, implying compulsion to save on limitation, demonstrated a lack of independent inquiry and application of mind. The financial year was wrongly mentioned, approval was granted by the PCIT based on an incomplete Performa, and the satisfaction of the Additional CIT that the 'case requires verification' did not meet the requirement of 'chargeable income has escaped assessment' u/s 148. The Tribunal found overwhelming reasons that the reasons recorded and approval granted u/s 151 did not meet legal requirements. The issuance of notice u/s 148 based on cryptic reasons and mechanical approval by the Pr.CIT u/s 151 did not pass.
The case pertains to the assumption of jurisdiction u/ss 147/148 read with section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 instead of the statutory path available u/s 153C. The case was reopened beyond the period of four years based on information received from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi, alleging bogus Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and addition u/s 68 on account of share capital treated as an accommodation entry. The Tribunal held that the AO's reluctance to initiate reopening proceedings based on generalized and uncorroborated information, and the issuance of notice u/s 148 on the last day, implying compulsion to save on limitation, demonstrated a lack of independent inquiry and application of mind. The financial year was wrongly mentioned, approval was granted by the PCIT based on an incomplete Performa, and the satisfaction of the Additional CIT that the 'case requires verification' did not meet the requirement of 'chargeable income has escaped assessment' u/s 148. The Tribunal found overwhelming reasons that the reasons recorded and approval granted u/s 151 did not meet legal requirements. The issuance of notice u/s 148 based on cryptic reasons and mechanical approval by the Pr.CIT u/s 151 did not pass.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
