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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in denying the assessee's request for rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act and allowing credit for the difference in Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) for the assessment year 2019-20. The AO had initially restricted TDS based on Rule 37BA but later rectified the mistake u/s 154, allowing credit for the difference. However, the AO subsequently issued a letter denying the rectification without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement u/s 154(3). The ITAT set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and directed the AO to give effect to the earlier rectification order allowing credit for the difference in TDS.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in denying the assessee's request for rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act and allowing credit for the difference in Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) for the assessment year 2019-20. The AO had initially restricted TDS based on Rule 37BA but later rectified the mistake u/s 154, allowing credit for the difference. However, the AO subsequently issued a letter denying the rectification without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which is a mandatory requirement u/s 154(3). The ITAT set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and directed the AO to give effect to the earlier rectification order allowing credit for the difference in TDS.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
