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 quashed the reassessment order due to procedural defects. The Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections through a speaking order after issuing notice u/s 147, violating principles established in GKN Driveshafts case. The court rejected the department's attempt to rely on reasons mentioned in the approval granted u/s 151, as it was impermissible after passing the assessment order. The Assessing Officer adopted different approaches, furnishing different reasons to the assessee and Joint Commissioner, and proceeded without disposing of objections, acting against revenue's interest. The court questioned the Assessing Officer's reckless actions leading to potential revenue loss and sought scrutiny of such officers' performance by higher authorities.
The High Court quashed the reassessment order due to procedural defects. The Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections through a speaking order after issuing notice u/s 147, violating principles established in GKN Driveshafts case. The court rejected the department's attempt to rely on reasons mentioned in the approval granted u/s 151, as it was impermissible after passing the assessment order. The Assessing Officer adopted different approaches, furnishing different reasons to the assessee and Joint Commissioner, and proceeded without disposing of objections, acting against revenue's interest. The court questioned the Assessing Officer's reckless actions leading to potential revenue loss and sought scrutiny of such officers' performance by higher authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
