Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The High Court examined the validity of an assessment order issued without offering a personal hearing, deeming it a breach of natural justice. The case was transferred from the National Faceless Assessment Center to the jurisdictional AO u/s 144B(8). The respondent rejected the petitioner's request for a hearing via video conference due to purported lack of functionality, contrary to provisions in section 144B and a CBDT circular. The court found the respondent's claim baseless as the circular mandated a hearing either via video conference or in a designated area. The petitioner's right to a hearing was upheld, dismissing the respondent's argument of alternative appeal options. The assessment order was annulled, and the matter was remanded for a proper hearing in line with the CBDT circular.
The High Court examined the validity of an assessment order issued without offering a personal hearing, deeming it a breach of natural justice. The case was transferred from the National Faceless Assessment Center to the jurisdictional AO u/s 144B(8). The respondent rejected the petitioner's request for a hearing via video conference due to purported lack of functionality, contrary to provisions in section 144B and a CBDT circular. The court found the respondent's claim baseless as the circular mandated a hearing either via video conference or in a designated area. The petitioner's right to a hearing was upheld, dismissing the respondent's argument of alternative appeal options. The assessment order was annulled, and the matter was remanded for a proper hearing in line with the CBDT circular.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
