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...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
ITAT held that the assessments framed u/s 153C read with 153D are invalid for lack of jurisdiction: the deemed date of search was 17.10.2022 so s.153C could not be invoked, the requisite satisfaction note was neither supplied nor properly recorded (a consolidated note for multiple years vitiated proceedings), and sanction u/s 153D was mechanical and without application of mind. Consequential additions were set aside: alleged capital gains based solely on seizure spreadsheets without corroboration were not sustained, the s.54B relief already allowed in earlier s.143(3) proceedings was not revisit-able under s.153C, and reopening under s.148 amounted to change of opinion and was therefore invalid. Appeals allowed in favour of the assessee.
ITAT held that the assessments framed u/s 153C read with 153D are invalid for lack of jurisdiction: the deemed date of search was 17.10.2022 so s.153C could not be invoked, the requisite satisfaction note was neither supplied nor properly recorded (a consolidated note for multiple years vitiated proceedings), and sanction u/s 153D was mechanical and without application of mind. Consequential additions were set aside: alleged capital gains based solely on seizure spreadsheets without corroboration were not sustained, the s.54B relief already allowed in earlier s.143(3) proceedings was not revisit-able under s.153C, and reopening under s.148 amounted to change of opinion and was therefore invalid. Appeals allowed in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.