Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer acted within the bounds of limited scrutiny under CASS, rejecting the assessee's contention that the AO exceeded the prescribed scope; additions disallowing royalty payments (relating to scrap) and restrictions on carry-forward losses based on earlier s.143(3) assessments were sustained on merits. However, issues concerning disallowance under s.40(a) for royalty and SAP maintenance expenses, and the quantum of carry-forward losses insofar as they depend on contested additions in earlier years, were remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration. The appeal was therefore partly allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT held that the Assessing Officer acted within the bounds of limited scrutiny under CASS, rejecting the assessee's contention that the AO exceeded the prescribed scope; additions disallowing royalty payments (relating to scrap) and restrictions on carry-forward losses based on earlier s.143(3) assessments were sustained on merits. However, issues concerning disallowance under s.40(a) for royalty and SAP maintenance expenses, and the quantum of carry-forward losses insofar as they depend on contested additions in earlier years, were remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration. The appeal was therefore partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.