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...
Reopening of assessment after four years is invalid as the recorded reasons do not mention any failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. This is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Canara Bank, where reopening beyond four years was held bad in law when the AO did not allege non-disclosure of material facts. Similar view in ACIT vs Virbac Animal Health India, dismissing the SLP against the High Court order that reopening after four years due to change of opinion was invalid. Regarding bogus purchases, the entire sales turnover is reflected in books, considered for profit determination, and subjected to taxation. VAT returns and output tax paid support the transactions. The assessee provided materials showing the goods purchased were sold to a company, which further sold them to contractors for a thermal plant project. The AO examined these purchase-sale details during original assessment but found no defects. Based on merits and legal aspects, the reassessment initiated after four years without pointing out non-disclosure of material facts, and the addition for bogus purchases, are unjustified and invalid. Decided in favor of the assessee.
Reopening of assessment after four years is invalid as the recorded reasons do not mention any failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. This is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Canara Bank, where reopening beyond four years was held bad in law when the AO did not allege non-disclosure of material facts. Similar view in ACIT vs Virbac Animal Health India, dismissing the SLP against the High Court order that reopening after four years due to change of opinion was invalid. Regarding bogus purchases, the entire sales turnover is reflected in books, considered for profit determination, and subjected to taxation. VAT returns and output tax paid support the transactions. The assessee provided materials showing the goods purchased were sold to a company, which further sold them to contractors for a thermal plant project. The AO examined these purchase-sale details during original assessment but found no defects. Based on merits and legal aspects, the reassessment initiated after four years without pointing out non-disclosure of material facts, and the addition for bogus purchases, are unjustified and invalid. Decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
