Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to frame a draft assessment order and directly passing a final order was violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C, rendering the final order a nullity. The court emphasized that it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to frame an order in draft before issuing the final assessment order. Regarding the limitation period u/s 153, the court clarified that it cannot enlarge or expand the statutorily prescribed period for completing the assessment. The court found it unnecessary to examine additional challenges raised against the final assessment orders since the assessment period had expired. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer's failure to frame a draft assessment order and directly passing a final order was violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 144C, rendering the final order a nullity. The court emphasized that it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to frame an order in draft before issuing the final assessment order. Regarding the limitation period u/s 153, the court clarified that it cannot enlarge or expand the statutorily prescribed period for completing the assessment. The court found it unnecessary to examine additional challenges raised against the final assessment orders since the assessment period had expired. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
