Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
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.