Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case pertains to the rectification of a mistake and reopening of assessment u/s 147 versus assessment u/s 153C. The information or seized document belonging to the assessee was found at the searched person's place. The authorized representative mentioned that the Tribunal did not consider judicial decisions and dismissed the additional ground of appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147. The ITAT supported its view relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Honda Siel Power Productions Ltd., where the Tribunal's rectification application was allowed as it had missed considering a precedent judgment while dismissing the appeal on enhanced depreciation u/s 43A. The ITAT held that non-consideration of cited judicial decisions is a mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal recalled its order and directed the registry to post the appeal for regular hearing and inform the parties.
The case pertains to the rectification of a mistake and reopening of assessment u/s 147 versus assessment u/s 153C. The information or seized document belonging to the assessee was found at the searched person's place. The authorized representative mentioned that the Tribunal did not consider judicial decisions and dismissed the additional ground of appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147. The ITAT supported its view relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Honda Siel Power Productions Ltd., where the Tribunal's rectification application was allowed as it had missed considering a precedent judgment while dismissing the appeal on enhanced depreciation u/s 43A. The ITAT held that non-consideration of cited judicial decisions is a mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal recalled its order and directed the registry to post the appeal for regular hearing and inform the parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
