Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Delhi considered the validity of a re-assessment order where no notice u/s 148 was served on the assessee. The notice u/s 148 was issued through the ITBA portal but sent to the wrong email ID. The tribunal held that the notice generated on 30.03.2021 was not served on the assessee as the email ID did not belong to them. The limitation for issuing the notice would have ended on 30.03.2020, extended to 31.03.2021 due to Covid-19. The AO issued the notice just one day before the extended deadline, but the revenue failed to prove its service. The decision favored the assessee due to the lack of proper service of the notice.
The ITAT Delhi considered the validity of a re-assessment order where no notice u/s 148 was served on the assessee. The notice u/s 148 was issued through the ITBA portal but sent to the wrong email ID. The tribunal held that the notice generated on 30.03.2021 was not served on the assessee as the email ID did not belong to them. The limitation for issuing the notice would have ended on 30.03.2020, extended to 31.03.2021 due to Covid-19. The AO issued the notice just one day before the extended deadline, but the revenue failed to prove its service. The decision favored the assessee due to the lack of proper service of the notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
