Once the earlier Order-in-Appeal determining assessee s entitlement to drawback had attained finality and was accepted by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) in a subsequent proceeding could not reopen or revisit the issue of eligibility for drawback while examining the consequential order.
Once the Central Government notified the Faceless Scheme for reassessment (effective March 29, 2022), the JAO was effectively divested of the power to issue notices under Section 148. The issuance of a notice by a JAO instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) was a jurisdictional error that could not be cured.
PCIT s revision under section 263 against assessee was upheld holding that AO did not properly verify the very low Section 14A disallowance despite huge exempt income and also ignored INSIGHT portal inputs about alleged accommodation entries.
Since the primary object was the advancement of an object of general public utility without a profit motive, the activities did not constitute trade, commerce, or business. Therefore, the restrictions in the proviso to Section 2(15) were not applicable and assessee was held entitled to the exemption under Section 11.
Assessees were qualified as companies owning an industrial undertaking within the meaning of Section 72A. Accordingly, the carry forward and set-off of accumulated business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating transport corporations was allowable.
Section 7 application was initiated fraudulently and with malicious intent, in collusion between the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor, for purposes other than genuine insolvency resolution.
Project cost or turnover could constitute a relevant and permissible yardstick for quantification of environmental compensation, provided the determination was reasoned, proportionate and bears a rational nexus to the scale of violations.
Summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act was only a step in the process of inquiry. Mere issuance of summons could not be equated with arrest or initiation of recovery proceedings.
Appellate authorities could not summarily dismiss applications without verifying the actual submissions made by the taxpayer as for service exporters, FIRCs and BRCs were the gold standard for proving that services were exported, and proceeds were realized in convertible foreign exchange.
Failing to report transporter details in your quarterly TDS return was a procedural error, not a tax deduction failure. Since assessee was not liable to deduct tax (thanks to the declarations), Section 40(a)(ia)—which applied only when tax is deductible but not deducted—could not be invoked.
