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 ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed all Revenue grounds, holding the impugned final assessment order vitiated. The AO's initiation under s.153C was invalid because a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple distinct assessees and assessment years was recorded instead of distinct, year-wise satisfactions as mandated; seized material was not analyzed qua each assessment year. Applying the principle that incriminating material must be shown to pertain to a particular year, the Tribunal found non-compliance with ss.124-127 and s.153C. Further, because the assessee (a foreign non-resident and an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b)) did not receive a draft assessment as required by s.144C(1), the final order was vitiated and set aside.
The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed all Revenue grounds, holding the impugned final assessment order vitiated. The AO's initiation under s.153C was invalid because a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple distinct assessees and assessment years was recorded instead of distinct, year-wise satisfactions as mandated; seized material was not analyzed qua each assessment year. Applying the principle that incriminating material must be shown to pertain to a particular year, the Tribunal found non-compliance with ss.124-127 and s.153C. Further, because the assessee (a foreign non-resident and an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b)) did not receive a draft assessment as required by s.144C(1), the final order was vitiated and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
