Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
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.