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...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the reopening of assessment proceedings for the three years was invalid as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts, and scrutiny assessments for two years had accepted the transactions. The reopening was based solely on a statement from a key person, which was subsequently retracted citing coercion and mental distress. The AO and CIT(A) failed to address the retraction or assess its validity before relying on the original statement. The court emphasized that a retraction requires proper consideration before reliance on the initial statement. Due to this procedural lapse and lack of independent satisfaction, the reassessment notices were quashed, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.
The HC held that the reopening of assessment proceedings for the three years was invalid as the assessee had fully disclosed material facts, and scrutiny assessments for two years had accepted the transactions. The reopening was based solely on a statement from a key person, which was subsequently retracted citing coercion and mental distress. The AO and CIT(A) failed to address the retraction or assess its validity before relying on the original statement. The court emphasized that a retraction requires proper consideration before reliance on the initial statement. Due to this procedural lapse and lack of independent satisfaction, the reassessment notices were quashed, resulting in a decision favorable to the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.