Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reopening of assessment was upheld where the recorded reasons showed fresh tangible material from impounded documents and a director's statement, and the assessee had not fully disclosed the crucial Clause 7 entitlement to 35% of gross sale receipts; no earlier opinion on the receipt's true character had been formed, so change of opinion did not apply. The Court also held that reopening must stand or fall on the recorded reasons alone. On the merits, the assessee's 35% entitlement under the AOP agreement was not a share of profit, because it arose from gross receipts before project expenses and was diverted by overriding title; it was therefore taxable as business income.
Reopening of assessment was upheld where the recorded reasons showed fresh tangible material from impounded documents and a director's statement, and the assessee had not fully disclosed the crucial Clause 7 entitlement to 35% of gross sale receipts; no earlier opinion on the receipt's true character had been formed, so change of opinion did not apply. The Court also held that reopening must stand or fall on the recorded reasons alone. On the merits, the assessee's 35% entitlement under the AOP agreement was not a share of profit, because it arose from gross receipts before project expenses and was diverted by overriding title; it was therefore taxable as business income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.