Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
Two conflicting orders-in-original were issued by the same authority for the same shipment and duty drawback claim, reflecting total non-application of mind and legal infirmity. Once the earlier order-in-original was found unsustainable, the later order-in-original could not independently survive and was liable to be treated as a nullity because two inconsistent adjudications cannot coexist on the same claim. Accordingly, both orders-in-original and consequential communications/notices were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits under the Customs Act, after following due procedure and principles of natural justice, within a fixed timeframe. - HC
Two conflicting orders-in-original were issued by the same authority for the same shipment and duty drawback claim, reflecting total non-application of mind and legal infirmity. Once the earlier order-in-original was found unsustainable, the later order-in-original could not independently survive and was liable to be treated as a nullity because two inconsistent adjudications cannot coexist on the same claim. Accordingly, both orders-in-original and consequential communications/notices were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits under the Customs Act, after following due procedure and principles of natural justice, within a fixed timeframe. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.