The Tribunal held that revision under Section 263 is invalid where the Assessing Officer examined records and adopted a plausible view. Mere disagreement or desire for further enquiry is insufficient.
The Tribunal recalled its earlier order after finding that the assessee’s conditional withdrawal of reopening grounds was not properly considered. The matter was directed for fresh adjudication to address legal and factual issues.
The Court held that issuance of notice under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer is a jurisdictional defect. All consequential reassessment proceedings were set aside.
Reading The ‘Benefit’ Test Into Arm’s Length Price Determination: Throwing The Rulebook Out The Window 1. INTRODUCTION: Transfer Pricing Law, at its core, strikes at the distortion of ordinary business transactions, that occurs when related parties transact on terms inconsistent with competitive market conditions. Reportedly resorted to by Multinational Corporations in some instances, related-party transactions […]
The Tribunal held that exclusion of time for transfer of seized material applies only within the running limitation period. As the assessment was passed beyond the recalculated deadline, it was quashed as barred by limitation.
ITC under Section 17(5)(c) is restricted only when repair or renovation expenses are capitalised. Revenue expenses remain eligible, making accounting treatment crucial.
Courts clarify that ITC can be blocked only on recorded “reasons to believe” supported by concrete evidence. Mere suspicion or supplier default is insufficient to invoke Rule 86A.
CESTAT Kolkata held that demand of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism [RCM] raised merely on the basis of figures appearing in Balance Sheet without classifying the category of service is not sustainable.
Examines whether Section 144B’s faceless assessment system enhances transparency or creates challenges relating to natural justice and digital compliance.
Telangana High Court held that rejection of refund application by refund sanctioning authority not sustained since authorities failed to demonstrate that services rendered by petitioner tantamount to intermediary services. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
