Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 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 held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 under section 153C, as no incriminating material was found during the search that could substantiate additions. The tribunal quashed the reassessment orders, finding the jurisdictional fact absent and following the Supreme Court's precedent in DCIT vs U.K. Paints. The statement from a third party was deemed insufficient to draw adverse inferences, and the tribunal directed deletion of additions made under section 69. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, invalidating the impugned assessment orders.
The ITAT held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to reopen assessments for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 under section 153C, as no incriminating material was found during the search that could substantiate additions. The tribunal quashed the reassessment orders, finding the jurisdictional fact absent and following the Supreme Court's precedent in DCIT vs U.K. Paints. The statement from a third party was deemed insufficient to draw adverse inferences, and the tribunal directed deletion of additions made under section 69. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, invalidating the impugned assessment orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
