Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Revision jurisdiction was contested where revenue sought to revise an assessment by treating purchases as bogus. Tribunal found the assessing officer had issued statutory notices, conducted inquiries including notices to suppliers, and taken a plausible view after considering submissions; therefore the revisional officer could not substitute that view under the power to correct orders deemed "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." Clauses in Explanation 2 relied on by the revisional officer were held unsupported by facts or law, the revisional order was set aside, and the appeal decided against the revenue.
Revision jurisdiction was contested where revenue sought to revise an assessment by treating purchases as bogus. Tribunal found the assessing officer had issued statutory notices, conducted inquiries including notices to suppliers, and taken a plausible view after considering submissions; therefore the revisional officer could not substitute that view under the power to correct orders deemed "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." Clauses in Explanation 2 relied on by the revisional officer were held unsupported by facts or law, the revisional order was set aside, and the appeal decided against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.