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...
Section 249(4)(b) could not be used to reject the quantum appeal where the record did not show taxable income in India and, on the assessee's consistent case, no obligation to pay advance tax arose. The Tribunal noted that the addition stemmed only from an unexplained source of investment in immovable property, not from returned or admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. The quantum matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also restored for fresh consideration.
Section 249(4)(b) could not be used to reject the quantum appeal where the record did not show taxable income in India and, on the assessee's consistent case, no obligation to pay advance tax arose. The Tribunal noted that the addition stemmed only from an unexplained source of investment in immovable property, not from returned or admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. The quantum matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also restored for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
