Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Conduct of Reassessment Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - The High court found that the reassessment proceedings were conducted in great haste, violating the principles of natural justice. The Additional Commissioner granted permission to the Assessing Officer on 18.3.2023, and the notice was issued on 22.3.2023, served on the petitioner on 24.3.2023, with the reassessment order passed on 28.3.2023. The court noted that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond, as only two days were provided to respond to the reassessment notice. The court held that such a procedure undermined the trust in the rule of law and was unacceptable.
Conduct of Reassessment Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - The High court found that the reassessment proceedings were conducted in great haste, violating the principles of natural justice. The Additional Commissioner granted permission to the Assessing Officer on 18.3.2023, and the notice was issued on 22.3.2023, served on the petitioner on 24.3.2023, with the reassessment order passed on 28.3.2023. The court noted that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond, as only two days were provided to respond to the reassessment notice. The court held that such a procedure undermined the trust in the rule of law and was unacceptable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
