Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Revision under section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee's accumulation claim, Form No. 10, board resolutions and utilisation particulars, and had adopted a possible view on the material before him. The Commissioner could not invoke revision merely because he wanted deeper verification or considered another view preferable; absent independent demonstration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the exercise amounted to an impermissible fishing enquiry. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to section 263 could not be applied without prior notice to the assessee. The alleged tax consequence of non-utilisation of accumulated income did not arise in the relevant assessment year.
Revision under section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee's accumulation claim, Form No. 10, board resolutions and utilisation particulars, and had adopted a possible view on the material before him. The Commissioner could not invoke revision merely because he wanted deeper verification or considered another view preferable; absent independent demonstration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the exercise amounted to an impermissible fishing enquiry. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to section 263 could not be applied without prior notice to the assessee. The alleged tax consequence of non-utilisation of accumulated income did not arise in the relevant assessment year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.