Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
