Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
