Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Reopening under s.148A(1) was challenged on the ground that the AO lacked "information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" and instead undertook a roving inquiry based solely on consolidated debit and credit bank entries. The Court held that s.148A(1) permits only verification of such information available on the portal and does not authorize fishing inquiries, particularly when transactions were through banking channels and party-wise details were already available. As the notice and order were founded merely on consolidated bank entries without any further incriminating material, the AO exceeded jurisdiction; the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Reopening under s.148A(1) was challenged on the ground that the AO lacked "information which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" and instead undertook a roving inquiry based solely on consolidated debit and credit bank entries. The Court held that s.148A(1) permits only verification of such information available on the portal and does not authorize fishing inquiries, particularly when transactions were through banking channels and party-wise details were already available. As the notice and order were founded merely on consolidated bank entries without any further incriminating material, the AO exceeded jurisdiction; the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.