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 held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 did not violate the provisions of Section 148A. The respondents provided the petitioners an opportunity of being heard as specified in the order. The court found that the impugned orders mentioned the non-genuine accommodation entries made by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta through various firms controlled by him, including M/s Kalki Trading Company and M/s Swastik Traders. The petitioners admitted transactions with these firms, involving the purchase and sale of commodities on the same day, indicating paper transactions. The court opined that the impugned orders u/s 148A(d) did not violate Section 148A, and the transactions being bogus, the petitioners' contentions regarding sale and not purchase lost their effect. The impugned orders did not fall within the exceptions settled by the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee case.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 did not violate the provisions of Section 148A. The respondents provided the petitioners an opportunity of being heard as specified in the order. The court found that the impugned orders mentioned the non-genuine accommodation entries made by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta through various firms controlled by him, including M/s Kalki Trading Company and M/s Swastik Traders. The petitioners admitted transactions with these firms, involving the purchase and sale of commodities on the same day, indicating paper transactions. The court opined that the impugned orders u/s 148A(d) did not violate Section 148A, and the transactions being bogus, the petitioners' contentions regarding sale and not purchase lost their effect. The impugned orders did not fall within the exceptions settled by the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
