Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
This case deals with the validity of assessment proceedings initiated against an amalgamated company for the assessment year 2018-19. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously assumed jurisdiction u/ss 147/148/148A, alleging income had escaped assessment because the amalgamating company failed to file a return for AY 2018-19. However, the amalgamating company stood dissolved on March 30, 2018, and could not file a return. Only the amalgamated company was required to file, which it duly did. The consolidated accounts were assessed u/s 143(3). The AO failed to establish that items mentioned in the Section 148A(b) notice were not incorporated in the amalgamated company's accounts/return, resulting in escaped income. This vitiated the proceedings. The AO violated principles of natural justice by not granting an effective hearing despite requests. Section 148A(b) mandates granting an opportunity by issuing a show-cause notice with a minimum 7-day and maximum 30-day response period, extendable on application. Though the notice was issued on March 23, 2022, with a 7-day period, the AO improperly extended it to April 19, 2022, without an application. The Section 148 notice issued on April.
This case deals with the validity of assessment proceedings initiated against an amalgamated company for the assessment year 2018-19. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) erroneously assumed jurisdiction u/ss 147/148/148A, alleging income had escaped assessment because the amalgamating company failed to file a return for AY 2018-19. However, the amalgamating company stood dissolved on March 30, 2018, and could not file a return. Only the amalgamated company was required to file, which it duly did. The consolidated accounts were assessed u/s 143(3). The AO failed to establish that items mentioned in the Section 148A(b) notice were not incorporated in the amalgamated company's accounts/return, resulting in escaped income. This vitiated the proceedings. The AO violated principles of natural justice by not granting an effective hearing despite requests. Section 148A(b) mandates granting an opportunity by issuing a show-cause notice with a minimum 7-day and maximum 30-day response period, extendable on application. Though the notice was issued on March 23, 2022, with a 7-day period, the AO improperly extended it to April 19, 2022, without an application. The Section 148 notice issued on April.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
