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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the AO possessed sufficient material to initiate reassessment proceedings under s.148 read with s.148A(1) and to frame an order under s.143A(3); the impugned action was taken pursuant to information generated under the CBDT's Risk Management Strategy recognised by s.148(3)(i). The court rejected the AO's inference that liquidation of a counterparty (hereinafter "Entity X") amounted to proof of a bogus concern, noting that subsequent acquisition of Entity X evidenced commercial legitimacy and that liquidation alone cannot justify a presumption of sham transactions. It was also noted that no complaint of denial of hearing under s.148A(1) was made.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the AO possessed sufficient material to initiate reassessment proceedings under s.148 read with s.148A(1) and to frame an order under s.143A(3); the impugned action was taken pursuant to information generated under the CBDT's Risk Management Strategy recognised by s.148(3)(i). The court rejected the AO's inference that liquidation of a counterparty (hereinafter "Entity X") amounted to proof of a bogus concern, noting that subsequent acquisition of Entity X evidenced commercial legitimacy and that liquidation alone cannot justify a presumption of sham transactions. It was also noted that no complaint of denial of hearing under s.148A(1) was made.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
