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 held that additions under section 153A based on purported bogus Long Term Capital Gains and commission expenses were unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material discovered during the search. Following established precedent, the AO cannot invoke section 153A to reassess completed assessments without search-based incriminating evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. However, the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to initiate proceedings under sections 147/148 was held to be beyond jurisdiction, as reopening cannot be indirectly mandated post section 153A adjudication, preserving the finality of proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection, clarifying that the CIT(A)'s remit ended with the deletion of the additions, and any advice or compulsion for fresh litigation under section 147 was ultra vires.
The ITAT held that additions under section 153A based on purported bogus Long Term Capital Gains and commission expenses were unsustainable in the absence of any incriminating material discovered during the search. Following established precedent, the AO cannot invoke section 153A to reassess completed assessments without search-based incriminating evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. However, the CIT(A)'s direction to the AO to initiate proceedings under sections 147/148 was held to be beyond jurisdiction, as reopening cannot be indirectly mandated post section 153A adjudication, preserving the finality of proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection, clarifying that the CIT(A)'s remit ended with the deletion of the additions, and any advice or compulsion for fresh litigation under section 147 was ultra vires.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.