Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
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 
