Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
