Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The High Court held that an Assessing Officer could not invoke Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to rectify a determination made by the Principal Commissioner under Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The scheme itself contains no rectification power, and Section 5(3) makes the amount determined and the order passed under the scheme final and conclusive. As the Act of 2020 does not apply the rectification provisions of the Income-tax Act to such determinations, the rectification order was without authority and was quashed.
The High Court held that an Assessing Officer could not invoke Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to rectify a determination made by the Principal Commissioner under Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The scheme itself contains no rectification power, and Section 5(3) makes the amount determined and the order passed under the scheme final and conclusive. As the Act of 2020 does not apply the rectification provisions of the Income-tax Act to such determinations, the rectification order was without authority and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
