Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
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...
The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was invalid as it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) who conducted the assessment proceedings, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The reopening was based on incorrect information that the assessee had purchased goods from a Pvt. Ltd. company, whereas the facts revealed that the assessee had sold goods worth Rs. 85,69,197/- to same company. The Tribunal further held that the addition made u/s 68 was unjustified as the assessee had already offered the sales for taxation and had discharged its onus by producing overwhelming evidence of the sales recorded in the books of account. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) was invalid as it should have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) who conducted the assessment proceedings, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The reopening was based on incorrect information that the assessee had purchased goods from a Pvt. Ltd. company, whereas the facts revealed that the assessee had sold goods worth Rs. 85,69,197/- to same company. The Tribunal further held that the addition made u/s 68 was unjustified as the assessee had already offered the sales for taxation and had discharged its onus by producing overwhelming evidence of the sales recorded in the books of account. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
