Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the appellant had furnished records, the department knew of the takeover and examined the documents, and suppression or fraud was not established; the duty demand was therefore time-barred. It further held that the area-based exemption was wrongly denied, since the notification did not prohibit manufacture of new products, expansion with new machinery, shifting of the unit within the eligible area, or transfer of ownership. Statements recorded under section 14 were inadmissible because the section 9D procedure was not followed, and the penalties under rules 25 and 26 also failed for want of the required factual findings.
The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked because the appellant had furnished records, the department knew of the takeover and examined the documents, and suppression or fraud was not established; the duty demand was therefore time-barred. It further held that the area-based exemption was wrongly denied, since the notification did not prohibit manufacture of new products, expansion with new machinery, shifting of the unit within the eligible area, or transfer of ownership. Statements recorded under section 14 were inadmissible because the section 9D procedure was not followed, and the penalties under rules 25 and 26 also failed for want of the required factual findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
