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 High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order made u/s 143(3) read with Section 260 for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the assessment should have been done in a faceless manner as per the scheme notified on 29th March 2022. However, the court held that the notification invoking Section 151A was for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment u/s 147, and not for regular assessments u/s 143(3). The court observed that Section 144B provides a complete code for faceless assessment, which was not applicable in this case. The Assessing Officer found the purchases from suppliers doubtful, raising questions of fact. The court was disinclined to interfere on such factual issues and dismissed the petition.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order made u/s 143(3) read with Section 260 for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the assessment should have been done in a faceless manner as per the scheme notified on 29th March 2022. However, the court held that the notification invoking Section 151A was for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment u/s 147, and not for regular assessments u/s 143(3). The court observed that Section 144B provides a complete code for faceless assessment, which was not applicable in this case. The Assessing Officer found the purchases from suppliers doubtful, raising questions of fact. The court was disinclined to interfere on such factual issues and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
