Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The assessment u/s 143(1) was invalid as the procedure laid down u/s 144B was not followed. The case was selected for regular assessment, but the assessee was not given an opportunity before making the addition. The revenue argued that the intimation order does not merge with the regular assessment when the Assessing Officer taxes the taxable income based on the intimation order u/s 143(1). However, it is well-settled law that an assessee cannot be taxed on an amount not legally imposable. The intimation u/s 143(1) was passed after selecting the case for regular assessment without giving the assessee an opportunity. The regular assessment u/s 143(3) was also passed within three months of the intimation order u/s 143(1). As per the Second Proviso to Section 143(1), no intimation can be sent after the expiry of the prescribed time limit. The assessee could have filed a rectification application u/s 154, which should have been disposed of within six months. However, the regular assessment was passed before that. The addition was proposed based on an apparent mistake, which the authorities failed to appreciate. The assessee did not claim the contingent liability in the profit and loss account, and the mistake was made by the tax auditor. The assessee cannot be penalized for the tax auditor's mistake. To achieve speedy justice, the Assessing.
The assessment u/s 143(1) was invalid as the procedure laid down u/s 144B was not followed. The case was selected for regular assessment, but the assessee was not given an opportunity before making the addition. The revenue argued that the intimation order does not merge with the regular assessment when the Assessing Officer taxes the taxable income based on the intimation order u/s 143(1). However, it is well-settled law that an assessee cannot be taxed on an amount not legally imposable. The intimation u/s 143(1) was passed after selecting the case for regular assessment without giving the assessee an opportunity. The regular assessment u/s 143(3) was also passed within three months of the intimation order u/s 143(1). As per the Second Proviso to Section 143(1), no intimation can be sent after the expiry of the prescribed time limit. The assessee could have filed a rectification application u/s 154, which should have been disposed of within six months. However, the regular assessment was passed before that. The addition was proposed based on an apparent mistake, which the authorities failed to appreciate. The assessee did not claim the contingent liability in the profit and loss account, and the mistake was made by the tax auditor. The assessee cannot be penalized for the tax auditor's mistake. To achieve speedy justice, the Assessing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.