Coercive recovery during GST searches is restrained pending scrutiny, preserving normal business operations and requiring adherence to investigation g...
COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
Page of 4894
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 97867 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC set aside the reassessment proceedings and quashed the sanction under section 151 insofar as they pertain to the Petitioner, holding that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court found the asserted "reasons to believe" unsupported by cogent material: the investigation report did not list the Petitioner as a beneficiary of accommodation entries and the contested transactions were sales proceeds already offered to tax. The reasons recorded misidentified another assessee and, together with uncorrected supervisory review, demonstrated a mechanical, non-application of mind in granting sanction. Consequently, reopening was held invalid and the Petitioner succeeded.
HC set aside the reassessment proceedings and quashed the sanction under section 151 insofar as they pertain to the Petitioner, holding that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court found the asserted "reasons to believe" unsupported by cogent material: the investigation report did not list the Petitioner as a beneficiary of accommodation entries and the contested transactions were sales proceeds already offered to tax. The reasons recorded misidentified another assessee and, together with uncorrected supervisory review, demonstrated a mechanical, non-application of mind in granting sanction. Consequently, reopening was held invalid and the Petitioner succeeded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
