Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - limited scrutiny of “Agricultural Income” - The High Court deliberated on the challenge to an Impugned Notice issued u/s 154 - It examined the contentions of both parties regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the scope of rectification u/s 154. Finding that certain issues raised in the notice were not addressed in the original Assessment Order, the Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to rectify such errors. It emphasized that the power to rectify extends to mistakes of fact or law apparent from the record. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Impugned Notice and allowing for further proceedings.
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - limited scrutiny of “Agricultural Income” - The High Court deliberated on the challenge to an Impugned Notice issued u/s 154 - It examined the contentions of both parties regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the scope of rectification u/s 154. Finding that certain issues raised in the notice were not addressed in the original Assessment Order, the Court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to rectify such errors. It emphasized that the power to rectify extends to mistakes of fact or law apparent from the record. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Impugned Notice and allowing for further proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.