Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessment order for the assessee and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. This decision aligns with the Tribunal's earlier ruling in the case of the co-owner, Dhirendra Nath Das, for the same assessment year. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with the notice issued u/s 142(1), considering the assessee's awareness of their responsibility as an employee of Indian Oil Corporation and the lack of a plausible explanation for non-compliance.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessment order for the assessee and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. This decision aligns with the Tribunal's earlier ruling in the case of the co-owner, Dhirendra Nath Das, for the same assessment year. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with the notice issued u/s 142(1), considering the assessee's awareness of their responsibility as an employee of Indian Oil Corporation and the lack of a plausible explanation for non-compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
