Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 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 HC held that notices and orders issued outside the faceless assessment mechanism under Section 144(b) read with Section 151A and the E-Assessment Scheme, 2022 are void for jurisdictional infirmity. Applying precedent from superior fora, the Court concluded the JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned communications where the Scheme and statutory mandate required issuance through the faceless/FAO process; consequently the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed. Relief granted to the assessee: all impugned notices and consequential orders issued by the JAO or otherwise outside the prescribed faceless mechanism are declared bad in law and set aside.
The HC held that notices and orders issued outside the faceless assessment mechanism under Section 144(b) read with Section 151A and the E-Assessment Scheme, 2022 are void for jurisdictional infirmity. Applying precedent from superior fora, the Court concluded the JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned communications where the Scheme and statutory mandate required issuance through the faceless/FAO process; consequently the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are quashed. Relief granted to the assessee: all impugned notices and consequential orders issued by the JAO or otherwise outside the prescribed faceless mechanism are declared bad in law and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.