Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 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" ?
HC held that reassessment initiated after the four-year period was invalid insofar as it rested solely on a change of opinion and not on tangible material demonstrating escapement of income. The court observed that once the appellant had discharged the duty to disclose material facts and an assessment was completed under s.143(3) following notices and inquiries under ss.142 and 143(2), the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment absent concealment or false declaration. Finding no evidence of nondisclosure or concealment, the HC answered the legal question in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned reassessment orders, obviating the need to adjudicate the s.80-IB/80HHC deduction issues.
HC held that reassessment initiated after the four-year period was invalid insofar as it rested solely on a change of opinion and not on tangible material demonstrating escapement of income. The court observed that once the appellant had discharged the duty to disclose material facts and an assessment was completed under s.143(3) following notices and inquiries under ss.142 and 143(2), the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment absent concealment or false declaration. Finding no evidence of nondisclosure or concealment, the HC answered the legal question in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned reassessment orders, obviating the need to adjudicate the s.80-IB/80HHC deduction issues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.