Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
