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...
The ITAT held that the order passed u/s 263 by the PCIT was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the order disregarded the assessee's legal and factual submissions without any discussion or rebuttal, rendering the proceedings a mere formality. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, paid the due taxes, and provided judicial precedents supporting their claim for deduction u/s 10AA. The Assessing Officer, after considering the submissions, took a legally plausible view and did not disturb the deduction claim. The Tribunal also highlighted that several precedents have held that once an assessee opts for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and pays taxes, the tax proceedings for that year cannot be re-agitated through Section 263 proceedings. Considering it was the ninth year of the deduction claim and the principle of consistency, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the order passed u/s 263.
The ITAT held that the order passed u/s 263 by the PCIT was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal observed that the order disregarded the assessee's legal and factual submissions without any discussion or rebuttal, rendering the proceedings a mere formality. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, paid the due taxes, and provided judicial precedents supporting their claim for deduction u/s 10AA. The Assessing Officer, after considering the submissions, took a legally plausible view and did not disturb the deduction claim. The Tribunal also highlighted that several precedents have held that once an assessee opts for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and pays taxes, the tax proceedings for that year cannot be re-agitated through Section 263 proceedings. Considering it was the ninth year of the deduction claim and the principle of consistency, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the order passed u/s 263.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
