Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
