Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of Faceless Assessment - demand notice was issued without furnishing a draft order to the Petitioners, violating Section 144C(1) of the IT Act. - After considering submissions from both parties, the High court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding non-compliance with statutory procedures. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned assessment order and notice. However, contrary to the petitioner's plea to conclude the matter there, the court opted to follow the approach established by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that while the assessment order was set aside, the department should be given an opportunity to rectify the procedural error and pass a fresh order in compliance with the law.
Validity of Faceless Assessment - demand notice was issued without furnishing a draft order to the Petitioners, violating Section 144C(1) of the IT Act. - After considering submissions from both parties, the High court found merit in the petitioner's argument regarding non-compliance with statutory procedures. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned assessment order and notice. However, contrary to the petitioner's plea to conclude the matter there, the court opted to follow the approach established by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that while the assessment order was set aside, the department should be given an opportunity to rectify the procedural error and pass a fresh order in compliance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.