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 HC invalidated the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, finding no tangible material indicating escaped income. The court determined that the Assessing Officer merely reconsidered the same material that had already undergone scrutiny during the original assessment, where Section 10A deductions were already reduced from the claimed amount. The reasons furnished for reopening failed to demonstrate any failure by the assessee to disclose true and full material facts-a prerequisite under Section 147. The court concluded that the reassessment constituted an impermissible change of opinion rather than discovery of new information, as no new material or undeclared income was identified that wasn't available during the original assessment process.
The HC invalidated the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, finding no tangible material indicating escaped income. The court determined that the Assessing Officer merely reconsidered the same material that had already undergone scrutiny during the original assessment, where Section 10A deductions were already reduced from the claimed amount. The reasons furnished for reopening failed to demonstrate any failure by the assessee to disclose true and full material facts-a prerequisite under Section 147. The court concluded that the reassessment constituted an impermissible change of opinion rather than discovery of new information, as no new material or undeclared income was identified that wasn't available during the original assessment process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.