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...
Where reopening rested solely on incriminating material seized in a search on another person, the special search assessment mechanism under section 153C prevailed over general reassessment under sections 147/148, and the reassessment was held bad in law. In the absence of the searched person's Assessing Officer's satisfaction note and any independent post-search material, jurisdiction under sections 147/148 could not be assumed on third-party search material alone. The objection of borrowed satisfaction was rejected because the Assessing Officer had issued notice, sought an explanation under section 148A(b), and passed a reasoned order under section 148A(d), showing independent application of mind.
Where reopening rested solely on incriminating material seized in a search on another person, the special search assessment mechanism under section 153C prevailed over general reassessment under sections 147/148, and the reassessment was held bad in law. In the absence of the searched person's Assessing Officer's satisfaction note and any independent post-search material, jurisdiction under sections 147/148 could not be assumed on third-party search material alone. The objection of borrowed satisfaction was rejected because the Assessing Officer had issued notice, sought an explanation under section 148A(b), and passed a reasoned order under section 148A(d), showing independent application of mind.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.