Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
ITAT ruled in favor of assessee on two key issues. First, the allegation of "on-money" payment for residential property was rejected as the difference between actual payment and registered value cannot be deemed undisclosed income when payments were made through verified banking channels and loan disbursements. Second, DRP's direction to AO for further verification post-DRP proceedings was held ultra vires as per Sec 144C. DRP must conduct verifications during proceedings under 144C(7), not after issuing directions. AO must complete assessment within one month of receiving DRP directions without additional inquiry. Consequently, the addition made in Final Assessment Order was held without jurisdiction and deleted.
ITAT ruled in favor of assessee on two key issues. First, the allegation of "on-money" payment for residential property was rejected as the difference between actual payment and registered value cannot be deemed undisclosed income when payments were made through verified banking channels and loan disbursements. Second, DRP's direction to AO for further verification post-DRP proceedings was held ultra vires as per Sec 144C. DRP must conduct verifications during proceedings under 144C(7), not after issuing directions. AO must complete assessment within one month of receiving DRP directions without additional inquiry. Consequently, the addition made in Final Assessment Order was held without jurisdiction and deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.