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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that notices issued under section 148 and section 148A(b) by the jurisdictional assessing officer, instead of the faceless assessing officer, are invalid and set aside; consequent reassessment orders premised on such notices are quashed. The Tribunal further determined that where the assessing officer, in reassessment proceedings, made no addition on the very issue forming the basis for reopening, the officer lacked jurisdiction to make other additions, rendering the reassessment void. Parties were granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal should controlling decisions of higher courts on the faceless-notice issue necessitate modification of this order.
ITAT held that notices issued under section 148 and section 148A(b) by the jurisdictional assessing officer, instead of the faceless assessing officer, are invalid and set aside; consequent reassessment orders premised on such notices are quashed. The Tribunal further determined that where the assessing officer, in reassessment proceedings, made no addition on the very issue forming the basis for reopening, the officer lacked jurisdiction to make other additions, rendering the reassessment void. Parties were granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal should controlling decisions of higher courts on the faceless-notice issue necessitate modification of this order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.