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...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 95794 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 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 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
