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...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Reopening of assessment concerned unexplained payment and alleged difference between stamp duty value and consideration under valuation provisions; appellate note records that the assessee, a non-resident, failed to substantiate a Rs.7,00,000 payment and was not questioned on the valuation difference. The appellate authority found the first appellate order disposed for nonprosecution without merits and the assessing officer did not verify payment dates or bank records. The tribunal directed restoration to the assessing officer for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate source of funds and to explain the stamp duty versus registration value (difference found less than 10%). Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Reopening of assessment concerned unexplained payment and alleged difference between stamp duty value and consideration under valuation provisions; appellate note records that the assessee, a non-resident, failed to substantiate a Rs.7,00,000 payment and was not questioned on the valuation difference. The appellate authority found the first appellate order disposed for nonprosecution without merits and the assessing officer did not verify payment dates or bank records. The tribunal directed restoration to the assessing officer for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate source of funds and to explain the stamp duty versus registration value (difference found less than 10%). Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
