Income Declaration Scheme declarations can evidence share-capital sources, while round-tripped funds and cash-linked credits require further verificat...
Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Separate speaking orders on reopening objections are mandatory; deciding them within reassessment invalidates jurisdiction and precludes revival of stale proceedings.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Reassessment proceedings alleging bogus purchases require the Assessing Officer to decide objections to reopening through a separate speaking order and communicate it before completing reassessment. Incorporating the response to those objections only in the reassessment order does not satisfy this mandatory procedure and makes the assumption of jurisdiction unsustainable. Reassessments for the relevant assessment years were therefore quashed, while challenges to the alleged bogus-purchase additions became infructuous. Remand was declined because restoring jurisdictionally invalid proceedings would revive stale matters; the Revenue may proceed in accordance with law.
Reassessment proceedings alleging bogus purchases require the Assessing Officer to decide objections to reopening through a separate speaking order and communicate it before completing reassessment. Incorporating the response to those objections only in the reassessment order does not satisfy this mandatory procedure and makes the assumption of jurisdiction unsustainable. Reassessments for the relevant assessment years were therefore quashed, while challenges to the alleged bogus-purchase additions became infructuous. Remand was declined because restoring jurisdictionally invalid proceedings would revive stale matters; the Revenue may proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4905 
