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 case involved the scope of limited scrutiny and the validity of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) attempted to convert the limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny. The Tribunal held that although the notice mentioned limited scrutiny, the subsequent paragraphs referred to scrutiny without specifying its limited nature. The AO identified the issue for examination as cash deposits during demonetization, indicating a limited purpose. To enlarge the scope and make other additions, the AO should have followed the procedure laid down by the CBDT's Instruction No. 5. Since the AO did not make any addition regarding cash deposits during demonetization and the assessee had deposited small accepted amounts, the assessment order was quashed for exceeding the AO's limited powers. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal emphasized the need to follow due procedure for converting a limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny.
The case involved the scope of limited scrutiny and the validity of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify cash deposits during demonetization. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) attempted to convert the limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny. The Tribunal held that although the notice mentioned limited scrutiny, the subsequent paragraphs referred to scrutiny without specifying its limited nature. The AO identified the issue for examination as cash deposits during demonetization, indicating a limited purpose. To enlarge the scope and make other additions, the AO should have followed the procedure laid down by the CBDT's Instruction No. 5. Since the AO did not make any addition regarding cash deposits during demonetization and the assessee had deposited small accepted amounts, the assessment order was quashed for exceeding the AO's limited powers. The appeal was allowed, and the Tribunal emphasized the need to follow due procedure for converting a limited scrutiny into a full scrutiny.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
