Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The High Court found procedural irregularities in a faceless assessment process. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not refer to summons u/s 133(6) in the show cause notice, leading to a variance between the notice and the assessment order u/s 144B. The AO failed to provide a copy of replies received u/s 133(6) and did not allow cross-examination. Citing previous cases, the Court quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide all relevant documents and allow cross-examination.
The High Court found procedural irregularities in a faceless assessment process. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not refer to summons u/s 133(6) in the show cause notice, leading to a variance between the notice and the assessment order u/s 144B. The AO failed to provide a copy of replies received u/s 133(6) and did not allow cross-examination. Citing previous cases, the Court quashed the assessment order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide all relevant documents and allow cross-examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
