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...
Reassessment beyond three years under section 149(1)(b) was unavailable because the Assessing Officer did not possess material showing escapement of income represented in the form of an asset of fifty lakh rupees or more. The order under section 148A(d) was found non-speaking, as it failed to explain why the housing loan sanction letter, bank statements and other supporting documents were unacceptable; the property purchase was substantially explained by the loan, and any remaining unexplained amount stayed below the statutory threshold. The notice under section 148 was therefore barred by limitation, the reopening was treated as a roving and fishing enquiry, and the section 148A(d) order, notice under section 148, and consequential assessment under section 147 were quashed.
Reassessment beyond three years under section 149(1)(b) was unavailable because the Assessing Officer did not possess material showing escapement of income represented in the form of an asset of fifty lakh rupees or more. The order under section 148A(d) was found non-speaking, as it failed to explain why the housing loan sanction letter, bank statements and other supporting documents were unacceptable; the property purchase was substantially explained by the loan, and any remaining unexplained amount stayed below the statutory threshold. The notice under section 148 was therefore barred by limitation, the reopening was treated as a roving and fishing enquiry, and the section 148A(d) order, notice under section 148, and consequential assessment under section 147 were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
