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...
Where a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) expressly accepted the returned income and made no addition or disallowance, the computation sheet could not override the assessment order. Once the regular assessment was completed, the earlier intimation under section 143(1) merged into it and lost independent existence, so the Assessing Officer could not rely on that earlier adjustment to justify a higher assessed income. The Tribunal further held that revising total income on these facts was not a mistake apparent from the record but a substantive re-determination of income, making section 154 unavailable. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the income had to remain as determined in the scrutiny assessment.
Where a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) expressly accepted the returned income and made no addition or disallowance, the computation sheet could not override the assessment order. Once the regular assessment was completed, the earlier intimation under section 143(1) merged into it and lost independent existence, so the Assessing Officer could not rely on that earlier adjustment to justify a higher assessed income. The Tribunal further held that revising total income on these facts was not a mistake apparent from the record but a substantive re-determination of income, making section 154 unavailable. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the income had to remain as determined in the scrutiny assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.