Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
