Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3001 to 3020 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A CBDT-prescribed format defect in notice under section 143(2) was held to be only a technical irregularity and not, by itself, a ground to invalidate the assessment. The rejection of books under section 145(3) was found unjustified because specific reasons for such rejection were not properly established, although the cash-book discrepancies could still be examined for a separate addition under section 69A. On the cash-deposit issue, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment so the assessee could produce supporting evidence and the Assessing Officer could decide the source of deposits afresh after affording effective hearing.
A CBDT-prescribed format defect in notice under section 143(2) was held to be only a technical irregularity and not, by itself, a ground to invalidate the assessment. The rejection of books under section 145(3) was found unjustified because specific reasons for such rejection were not properly established, although the cash-book discrepancies could still be examined for a separate addition under section 69A. On the cash-deposit issue, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment so the assessee could produce supporting evidence and the Assessing Officer could decide the source of deposits afresh after affording effective hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.