Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
A return filed in response to notice under section 148 was treated as a return under section 139, and if it was defective for want of e-verification, the Assessing Officer had to intimate the defect and allow cure under section 139(9). Once the Assessing Officer acted on that return, issuance of notice under section 143(2) became mandatory before framing reassessment. As no such notice was shown, the Tribunal held the reassessment bad in law and void ab initio, following earlier Delhi High Court decisions.
A return filed in response to notice under section 148 was treated as a return under section 139, and if it was defective for want of e-verification, the Assessing Officer had to intimate the defect and allow cure under section 139(9). Once the Assessing Officer acted on that return, issuance of notice under section 143(2) became mandatory before framing reassessment. As no such notice was shown, the Tribunal held the reassessment bad in law and void ab initio, following earlier Delhi High Court decisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
