Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment validity depended on two jurisdictional defects: the sanction under section 151 was held invalid because the escapement figure shifted from Rs. 1,11,37,000 to Rs. 66,13,961 and then to Rs. 27,00,000, showing non-application of mind at the sanction stage. The Tribunal also held that reopening beyond three years was unsustainable because the surviving alleged escapement was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended limitation under section 149(1). On these grounds, the reassessment was held untenable and the remaining issues were left open.
Reassessment validity depended on two jurisdictional defects: the sanction under section 151 was held invalid because the escapement figure shifted from Rs. 1,11,37,000 to Rs. 66,13,961 and then to Rs. 27,00,000, showing non-application of mind at the sanction stage. The Tribunal also held that reopening beyond three years was unsustainable because the surviving alleged escapement was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended limitation under section 149(1). On these grounds, the reassessment was held untenable and the remaining issues were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.