Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that the search assessment regime under section 153C is triggered by initiation of search in the case of the searched person, not by the later notice to the other person; because the search and handover of seized material occurred before 01/04/2021, the pre-amended law applied and the notice was valid. On merits, the addition based solely on seized pen drive data and Excel printouts failed because the electronic record was inadmissible for lack of valid section 65B compliance and no independent corroboration existed. The separate addition based on an unsigned third-party voucher was also deleted for want of supporting evidence and for internal inconsistency in the assessment order.
ITAT held that the search assessment regime under section 153C is triggered by initiation of search in the case of the searched person, not by the later notice to the other person; because the search and handover of seized material occurred before 01/04/2021, the pre-amended law applied and the notice was valid. On merits, the addition based solely on seized pen drive data and Excel printouts failed because the electronic record was inadmissible for lack of valid section 65B compliance and no independent corroboration existed. The separate addition based on an unsigned third-party voucher was also deleted for want of supporting evidence and for internal inconsistency in the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.