Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 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 the Addl./JCIT(A) erred in computing a delay of 4209 days from 28.01.2012, as there was no evidence that the intimation u/s 143(1) or any demand/recovery notice was ever served on Assessee X. ITAT observed that processing on 28.01.2012 could not have been pursuant to CBDT Circular No.13/2016 and, in absence of proof of service, concluded that limitation could not run from that date. Consequently, dismissal of the appeal on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable. On the substantive issue of status change from "any other AOP" to "LLP" without opportunity, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional AO to re-examine the correct status after hearing Assessee X. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT held that the Addl./JCIT(A) erred in computing a delay of 4209 days from 28.01.2012, as there was no evidence that the intimation u/s 143(1) or any demand/recovery notice was ever served on Assessee X. ITAT observed that processing on 28.01.2012 could not have been pursuant to CBDT Circular No.13/2016 and, in absence of proof of service, concluded that limitation could not run from that date. Consequently, dismissal of the appeal on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable. On the substantive issue of status change from "any other AOP" to "LLP" without opportunity, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional AO to re-examine the correct status after hearing Assessee X. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
