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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Reopening based on information from the Investigation Wing was invalid because the recorded reasons showed only suspicion and a request for scrutiny, not an independent reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that borrowed satisfaction, without the Assessing Officer's own enquiry or a live link between material and escapement, could not sustain reassessment. It also held that assessment could not stand because no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued for the relevant assessment year; a notice for a different year was not a curable typographical error. The reassessment and assessment order were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Reopening based on information from the Investigation Wing was invalid because the recorded reasons showed only suspicion and a request for scrutiny, not an independent reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that borrowed satisfaction, without the Assessing Officer's own enquiry or a live link between material and escapement, could not sustain reassessment. It also held that assessment could not stand because no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued for the relevant assessment year; a notice for a different year was not a curable typographical error. The reassessment and assessment order were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.