Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court held that the notices issued u/s 133(6) and the subsequent notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act were invalid. The petitioner had filed a reply to the notice u/s 133(6), but it was erroneously stated that no reply was received. The court found that the amount in question was already included in the petitioner's income tax return and duly processed by the Assessing Officer. The court concluded that the notice u/s 148 was issued without proper application of mind and was vitiated. Additionally, the court held that the officer who issued the notices lacked competence, as per the judgment in Jasjit Singh case, which ruled that notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer u/s 148 without conducting faceless assessment u/s 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notices issued u/ss 133(6) and 148.
The court held that the notices issued u/s 133(6) and the subsequent notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act were invalid. The petitioner had filed a reply to the notice u/s 133(6), but it was erroneously stated that no reply was received. The court found that the amount in question was already included in the petitioner's income tax return and duly processed by the Assessing Officer. The court concluded that the notice u/s 148 was issued without proper application of mind and was vitiated. Additionally, the court held that the officer who issued the notices lacked competence, as per the judgment in Jasjit Singh case, which ruled that notices issued by the Joint Assessing Officer u/s 148 without conducting faceless assessment u/s 144B were contrary to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notices issued u/ss 133(6) and 148.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
