Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Absence of a Document Identification Number in the assessment order was treated as an inherent defect going to the validity of the order itself, and the High Court set it aside on that ground, following earlier decisions. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing. On the delayed writ challenge, the Court did not finally decide the service dispute but accepted that practical difficulties in the GST portal regime and the patent irregularity in the order justified consideration of the petition, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax, with adjustment of amounts already paid or recovered.
Absence of a Document Identification Number in the assessment order was treated as an inherent defect going to the validity of the order itself, and the High Court set it aside on that ground, following earlier decisions. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing. On the delayed writ challenge, the Court did not finally decide the service dispute but accepted that practical difficulties in the GST portal regime and the patent irregularity in the order justified consideration of the petition, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax, with adjustment of amounts already paid or recovered.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.