Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
A scrutiny notice issued without established prior administrative approval was held void ab initio, and the resulting assessment under section 143(3) was annulled for want of jurisdiction. Additions based on third-party seized material also failed because the Assessing Officer had not recorded the requisite satisfaction with competent approval, so the statutory jurisdictional preconditions were not met. The first appellate authority exceeded its power by converting an unexplained-money addition into a trading addition and by introducing a new basis of assessment. Alleged suppressed sales, unexplained money, unaccounted purchases, and estimated unexplained expenditure were deleted because the loose papers were uncorroborated, cross-examination weakened the nexus, and section 69C was applied on conjecture rather than proof.
A scrutiny notice issued without established prior administrative approval was held void ab initio, and the resulting assessment under section 143(3) was annulled for want of jurisdiction. Additions based on third-party seized material also failed because the Assessing Officer had not recorded the requisite satisfaction with competent approval, so the statutory jurisdictional preconditions were not met. The first appellate authority exceeded its power by converting an unexplained-money addition into a trading addition and by introducing a new basis of assessment. Alleged suppressed sales, unexplained money, unaccounted purchases, and estimated unexplained expenditure were deleted because the loose papers were uncorroborated, cross-examination weakened the nexus, and section 69C was applied on conjecture rather than proof.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.