Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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 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 
