Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
A jurisdictional challenge to reassessment under section 147, raised for the first time in cross-objection on the footing that section 153C should have applied, was not entertained because it required fresh factual inquiry beyond the existing appellate record and no such challenge had been raised before the first appellate authority. The tribunal also upheld best judgment estimation of commission income from accommodation entries, holding that the appellate authority could not replace the Assessing Officer's estimate of 2% with 0.5% without identifying any evidentiary or legal infirmity in the original estimate. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed and the additions were restored.
A jurisdictional challenge to reassessment under section 147, raised for the first time in cross-objection on the footing that section 153C should have applied, was not entertained because it required fresh factual inquiry beyond the existing appellate record and no such challenge had been raised before the first appellate authority. The tribunal also upheld best judgment estimation of commission income from accommodation entries, holding that the appellate authority could not replace the Assessing Officer's estimate of 2% with 0.5% without identifying any evidentiary or legal infirmity in the original estimate. The assessee's cross-objections were dismissed and the additions were restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.