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 ITAT upheld the validity of adjustments made in the intimation u/s 143(1) regarding the addition of payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due date. The assessee's objection that the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited case was applicable only for scrutiny assessments and not for processing returns u/s 143(1) was rejected. The intimation dated 31.03.2021, though communicated on 01.04.2021, was held not barred by limitation as the extended time limit for processing the return was till 31.01.2024. The nature of adjustment was properly reflected in the intimation, and the prior intimation regarding proposed adjustments was sent to the assessee's email account, which was legally valid. The assessee's contention of not receiving the prior intimation was dismissed, and the ITAT found the assessee had misrepresented facts.
The ITAT upheld the validity of adjustments made in the intimation u/s 143(1) regarding the addition of payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC beyond the due date. The assessee's objection that the Apex Court's decision in Checkmate Services Private Limited case was applicable only for scrutiny assessments and not for processing returns u/s 143(1) was rejected. The intimation dated 31.03.2021, though communicated on 01.04.2021, was held not barred by limitation as the extended time limit for processing the return was till 31.01.2024. The nature of adjustment was properly reflected in the intimation, and the prior intimation regarding proposed adjustments was sent to the assessee's email account, which was legally valid. The assessee's contention of not receiving the prior intimation was dismissed, and the ITAT found the assessee had misrepresented facts.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
