Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revision under section 263 challenged the validity of an exemption claim under section 54 on grounds that the assessing officer failed to examine supporting materials; tribunal found the AO had issued a specific query under section 142(1), the assessee uploaded conveyance deed and supporting evidence in response, and assessment followed that examination. Consequently the reassessment order under section 263 was not sustainable because the assessment was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial where relevant details were on record and considered. Reliance was placed on prior judicial authority supporting that record-based examination negates the ground for revision.
Revision under section 263 challenged the validity of an exemption claim under section 54 on grounds that the assessing officer failed to examine supporting materials; tribunal found the AO had issued a specific query under section 142(1), the assessee uploaded conveyance deed and supporting evidence in response, and assessment followed that examination. Consequently the reassessment order under section 263 was not sustainable because the assessment was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial where relevant details were on record and considered. Reliance was placed on prior judicial authority supporting that record-based examination negates the ground for revision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.