The article explains why PSARA License is compulsory for security agencies in India and outlines the legal requirements, eligibility conditions, and compliance obligations for lawful operations.
Whistleblower reward of Rs. 8.16 crore received by the assessee from the U.S. SEC for providing information and substantial assistance in enforcement proceedings was a taxable revenue receipt.
Tribunal held that third-party exports relied upon by EPCG licence holders for discharge of export obligation were valid under the FTP framework prevailing during the relevant period and that Customs authorities could not disregard subsisting EODCs restored by DGFT in the absence of independently established fraud.
The Jaipur ITAT held that reopening under Section 147 cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer merely relies on information from the Investigation Wing without forming an independent belief. The reassessment proceedings were held invalid for lack of independent application of mind.
The Jaipur ITAT held that reopening of assessment cannot be based solely on information received from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as the Assessing Officer failed to form his own satisfaction.
The Lucknow ITAT held that reassessment proceedings cannot survive where the reasons recorded contain incorrect facts and lack proper application of mind. The reassessment order was quashed as the recorded reasons were found arbitrary and unsustainable.
The Nagpur ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) after noting that the legal issue regarding notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is pending before the Supreme Court. A fresh adjudication on merits was directed.
The Bombay High Court held that Section 65 audit proceedings can be initiated even after GST registration is cancelled if the audit pertains to a period when the taxpayer was registered. Cancellation of registration does not extinguish statutory obligations relating to past tax periods.
Mumbai ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued beyond three years was invalid because approval was obtained from the Principal CIT instead of the prescribed higher authority under Section 151. The reassessment proceedings and assessment order were quashed.
The Mumbai ITAT held that a Section 148 notice issued beyond three years was invalid because the alleged escaped income was only Rs. 2,03,816, below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold. The reassessment and consequential additions were quashed.
