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 ITAT quashed approvals granted under section 153D, finding them procedurally defective. The approving JCIT had mechanically approved draft assessment orders without demonstrating application of mind, merely stating "Following draft assessment orders are being approved" without reasons or evidence of examining the material. The Tribunal noted that protective and substantive assessments against the company and its Director were approved in separate letters rather than together, with the protective addition approval preceding the substantive one, further indicating mechanical processing. The JCIT's subsequent letter revealed a misconception that approval was "only a formal culmination" rather than a substantive requirement. The ITAT emphasized that approval letters must be speaking orders demonstrating proper application of mind. Approvals were vitiated and quashed in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT quashed approvals granted under section 153D, finding them procedurally defective. The approving JCIT had mechanically approved draft assessment orders without demonstrating application of mind, merely stating "Following draft assessment orders are being approved" without reasons or evidence of examining the material. The Tribunal noted that protective and substantive assessments against the company and its Director were approved in separate letters rather than together, with the protective addition approval preceding the substantive one, further indicating mechanical processing. The JCIT's subsequent letter revealed a misconception that approval was "only a formal culmination" rather than a substantive requirement. The ITAT emphasized that approval letters must be speaking orders demonstrating proper application of mind. Approvals were vitiated and quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
