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...
The Appellate Tribunal examined the reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond the limitation period, involving the addition of cash deposits in the assessee's savings bank account as unexplained investment u/s 69. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had attempted to serve the notice within the stipulated six-year time frame from the end of the assessment year, indicating escapement of income. However, the Tribunal found force in the contention that the jurisdiction vested with the ITO, W-1(3) could not be validly transferred to ACIT-1(1) without a proper order u/s 127. Furthermore, no valid reopening notice was issued by the ACIT-1(1) within the stipulated time. Consequently, the ACIT-1(1) lacked valid jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 144 read with Section 147. The Tribunal quashed the assessment framed by the ACIT-1(1) for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction and refrained from addressing the other grounds of appeal challenging the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A), leaving them open.
The Appellate Tribunal examined the reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond the limitation period, involving the addition of cash deposits in the assessee's savings bank account as unexplained investment u/s 69. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had attempted to serve the notice within the stipulated six-year time frame from the end of the assessment year, indicating escapement of income. However, the Tribunal found force in the contention that the jurisdiction vested with the ITO, W-1(3) could not be validly transferred to ACIT-1(1) without a proper order u/s 127. Furthermore, no valid reopening notice was issued by the ACIT-1(1) within the stipulated time. Consequently, the ACIT-1(1) lacked valid jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 144 read with Section 147. The Tribunal quashed the assessment framed by the ACIT-1(1) for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction and refrained from addressing the other grounds of appeal challenging the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A), leaving them open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
