Reassessment proceedings initiated by officers without jurisdiction and completed by different officers without recording fresh reasons are legally untenable.
Learn about the case of Skybridge Solutions Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) regarding the final assessment order passed under Section 144C without objection against the draft assessment order. Understand the implications and key takeaways from the judgment.
Meghalaya High Court dismissed appeal, ruling that issues concerning service value must be appealed to Supreme Court under section 35L of Central Excise Act.
ITAT observed that reasons recorded by AO for reopening assessment did not mention name of assessee’s broker or specific details implicating assessee in fraudulent CCM transactions. Information provided did not establish a direct link between assessee and alleged tax evasion practices.
Upesi Ventures Ltd. vs. ACIT: Bombay High Court nullifies reassessment notice for AY 2015-2016. Analysis of stock details reveals no income escape. Full judgment here.
ITAT rejected the assessee’s contention of limited scrutiny, stating that the notice under section 143(2) did not specify such limitation.
Explore the detailed judgment of Calcutta High Court regarding the appeal by the Commissioner of Customs against Rajendra Kumar Damani, addressing issues of voluntary statements, burden of proof, and smuggling allegations.
Delhi High Court ruled that lower-ranked officers have authority to issue and adjudicate Show Cause Notices under Customs Act, even in cases where Commissioner of Customs has been involved in previous proceedings.
Read how Delhi High Court directs CESTAT to decide appeals on merit, not just jurisdiction, in Commissioner of Customs vs Balaji Exports case. Analysis & Conclusion included.
Understand the CESTAT Ahmedabad ruling: No service tax on freight margin recovered from customers in outbound shipment cases. Analysis & implications discussed.
