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 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
