Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.