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 ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(E)] u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act was quashed. The notice issued u/s 263 was not validly served on the assessee, either through registered post or email, before the hearing date. The notices were served only after the hearing date, violating the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the CIT(E)'s order was passed after the two-year limitation period prescribed u/s 263(2) had expired. Relying on the judgments of M L Chains and Tulsi Tracom (P) Ltd., the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the CIT(E)'s order due to invalid service of notice and the expiry of the limitation period.
The ITAT held that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(E)] u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act was quashed. The notice issued u/s 263 was not validly served on the assessee, either through registered post or email, before the hearing date. The notices were served only after the hearing date, violating the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the CIT(E)'s order was passed after the two-year limitation period prescribed u/s 263(2) had expired. Relying on the judgments of M L Chains and Tulsi Tracom (P) Ltd., the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the CIT(E)'s order due to invalid service of notice and the expiry of the limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
