he tribunal held that an appellate order based on an incorrect and reconstructed timeline of statutory notices is unsustainable. Errors in sequencing of notices strike at the root of jurisdiction and require fresh adjudication.
It was held that identity and address verification lies with the entity last uploading KYC data to CKYCR. AIFIs relying on compliant records need not repeat verification but remain responsible for all other CDD requirements.
The amendment specifies that identity and address verification rests with the entity that last updated CKYCR records. ARCs relying on such data are spared repeat checks but remain responsible for full customer due diligence.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that for redeveloped flats, the allotment date marks acquisition, confirming long-term capital gains eligibility under section 54, despite later possession.
The regulator held that identity and address verification rests with the entity last uploading KYC data to CKYCR. Local area banks relying on valid records need not re-verify, while remaining responsible for all other CDD requirements.
The tribunal ruled that section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner believes further enquiry was possible. Unless the order is unsustainable in law, revision on alleged inadequate enquiry is impermissible.
Applying a liberal approach, the tribunal condoned delay in appeal filing and examined the jurisdictional defect. Since reopening was initiated by the wrong authority, the assessment could not survive.
The amendment clarifies that identity and address verification lies with the entity that last updated CKYCR records. NBFCs relying on such records need not repeat verification but must continue full customer due diligence.
The regulator held that identity and address verification lies with the last entity uploading KYC data to CKYCR. Payments banks relying on valid records need not repeat verification, while retaining responsibility for other CDD requirements.
The tribunal held that when the assessment order is remanded for de-novo adjudication, the very basis for penalty ceases to exist. Consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) become unsustainable.
