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...
For reopening beyond three years, the statutory threshold under section 149(1)(b) must be met by material showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. The Tribunal held that the reopening was initiated on incorrect or non-existing portal information, because the assessment ultimately treated only Rs. 17,17,597 as unexplained after verification and explanation by the assessee. As the case did not satisfy the extended-limitation condition, it fell within section 149(1)(a) and the notice under section 148 issued beyond three years was invalid. The consequential reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B was quashed as void ab initio.
For reopening beyond three years, the statutory threshold under section 149(1)(b) must be met by material showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. The Tribunal held that the reopening was initiated on incorrect or non-existing portal information, because the assessment ultimately treated only Rs. 17,17,597 as unexplained after verification and explanation by the assessee. As the case did not satisfy the extended-limitation condition, it fell within section 149(1)(a) and the notice under section 148 issued beyond three years was invalid. The consequential reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B was quashed as void ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.