Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
The court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner's request letter to the authority to consider the matter cannot be construed as participation. The petitioner should have informed the authority about the overlapping amount, which the authority could have considered. The court held that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for rehearing and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
The court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner's request letter to the authority to consider the matter cannot be construed as participation. The petitioner should have informed the authority about the overlapping amount, which the authority could have considered. The court held that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for rehearing and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
