Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order made u/s 143(3) read with Section 260 for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the assessment should have been done in a faceless manner as per the scheme notified on 29th March 2022. However, the court held that the notification invoking Section 151A was for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment u/s 147, and not for regular assessments u/s 143(3). The court observed that Section 144B provides a complete code for faceless assessment, which was not applicable in this case. The Assessing Officer found the purchases from suppliers doubtful, raising questions of fact. The court was disinclined to interfere on such factual issues and dismissed the petition.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the assessment order made u/s 143(3) read with Section 260 for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner argued that the assessment should have been done in a faceless manner as per the scheme notified on 29th March 2022. However, the court held that the notification invoking Section 151A was for faceless assessment of income escaping assessment u/s 147, and not for regular assessments u/s 143(3). The court observed that Section 144B provides a complete code for faceless assessment, which was not applicable in this case. The Assessing Officer found the purchases from suppliers doubtful, raising questions of fact. The court was disinclined to interfere on such factual issues and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
