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...
The HC quashed reassessment proceedings under s.147 initiated after four years on multiple grounds. The proceedings lacked jurisdiction as the reasons for reopening failed to specify any non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee as required by the first proviso to s.147. The Court noted discrepancies between reasons in the draft assessment order and those annexed to the reply affidavit. Additionally, the "guarantee fees" issue was already pending before the Tribunal, invoking the third proviso to s.147 which bars reassessment on matters under appellate consideration. The Court emphasized that since the issue had been examined and added in the original assessment, there was no income that had "escaped assessment," rendering the proceedings jurisdictionally defective.
The HC quashed reassessment proceedings under s.147 initiated after four years on multiple grounds. The proceedings lacked jurisdiction as the reasons for reopening failed to specify any non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee as required by the first proviso to s.147. The Court noted discrepancies between reasons in the draft assessment order and those annexed to the reply affidavit. Additionally, the "guarantee fees" issue was already pending before the Tribunal, invoking the third proviso to s.147 which bars reassessment on matters under appellate consideration. The Court emphasized that since the issue had been examined and added in the original assessment, there was no income that had "escaped assessment," rendering the proceedings jurisdictionally defective.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.