Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
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.