Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT upheld the validity of reopening under s.148 (reasons recorded, sanction obtained, survey-linked information), dismissing the challenge to jurisdiction and the plea for s.153C. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on substantive additions: it held that CIT(A) wrongly exercised powers under s.251(2) read with s.145(3) without applying accepted accounting/project completion methods, rendering those additions bad in law; consequential disallowances and construction-expense additions sustained by AO/CIT(A) were deleted. The cancellation of registration under s.12AA and related presumptive additions were not sustained, and the impugned additions are set aside in favour of the assessee.
ITAT upheld the validity of reopening under s.148 (reasons recorded, sanction obtained, survey-linked information), dismissing the challenge to jurisdiction and the plea for s.153C. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on substantive additions: it held that CIT(A) wrongly exercised powers under s.251(2) read with s.145(3) without applying accepted accounting/project completion methods, rendering those additions bad in law; consequential disallowances and construction-expense additions sustained by AO/CIT(A) were deleted. The cancellation of registration under s.12AA and related presumptive additions were not sustained, and the impugned additions are set aside in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
