Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order invoking Section 144C(3) on the ground that the assessee did not file objections within the specified time u/s 144C(2)(b). The assessee had uploaded Form 35A on the Income Tax Portal and sent it physically within 30 days of receiving the draft order, fulfilling the requirement. The concept of a "draft order" was introduced with the faceless assessment scheme u/s 144B. Therefore, the assessment order and the DRP's order refraining from variations were contrary to Section 144C and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the provisional attachment u/s 281B also did not survive as it had already lived its life of 6 years without extension by the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing the assessment order invoking Section 144C(3) on the ground that the assessee did not file objections within the specified time u/s 144C(2)(b). The assessee had uploaded Form 35A on the Income Tax Portal and sent it physically within 30 days of receiving the draft order, fulfilling the requirement. The concept of a "draft order" was introduced with the faceless assessment scheme u/s 144B. Therefore, the assessment order and the DRP's order refraining from variations were contrary to Section 144C and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the provisional attachment u/s 281B also did not survive as it had already lived its life of 6 years without extension by the Assessing Officer after passing the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
