Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that the Form 36 (memo of appeal) was not duly verified as per Rule 47(1) read with Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The rules mandate that Form 36 must be verified by the person authorized to verify the return of income u/s 140 of the Income Tax Act, which in case of a company is the Managing Director or any Director. However, in this case, Form 36 was verified by the Authorized Representative (Chartered Accountant) of the assessee company instead of the Managing Director or a Director. Consequently, the appeal was held to be invalid and dismissed in limine. The Tribunal also noted issues with the ex-parte assessment order passed without proper service of notice to the assessee and in the name of a different entity, as well as the addition of bogus accommodation entries.
The appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that the Form 36 (memo of appeal) was not duly verified as per Rule 47(1) read with Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The rules mandate that Form 36 must be verified by the person authorized to verify the return of income u/s 140 of the Income Tax Act, which in case of a company is the Managing Director or any Director. However, in this case, Form 36 was verified by the Authorized Representative (Chartered Accountant) of the assessee company instead of the Managing Director or a Director. Consequently, the appeal was held to be invalid and dismissed in limine. The Tribunal also noted issues with the ex-parte assessment order passed without proper service of notice to the assessee and in the name of a different entity, as well as the addition of bogus accommodation entries.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
