Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Whether the tax authority could reopen and seek recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund of input tax credit for zero-rated exports by issuing a demand-cum-show cause notice under s.73, despite a prior appellate order on the same refund, was the dominant issue. The court held that appellate orders attain finality and bind the parties under s.107(16) unless varied or reversed, and the adjudicating authority is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel from re-agitating the same objection; proceeding mechanically and contrary to the appellate determination also offends natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notices proposing adjudication under s.73 were set aside and the petition was allowed. - HC
Whether the tax authority could reopen and seek recovery of an allegedly erroneous refund of input tax credit for zero-rated exports by issuing a demand-cum-show cause notice under s.73, despite a prior appellate order on the same refund, was the dominant issue. The court held that appellate orders attain finality and bind the parties under s.107(16) unless varied or reversed, and the adjudicating authority is barred by res judicata/issue estoppel from re-agitating the same objection; proceeding mechanically and contrary to the appellate determination also offends natural justice. Consequently, the impugned notices proposing adjudication under s.73 were set aside and the petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
