Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC held assessment order invalid due to fundamental procedural defects in implementing Faceless Assessment Scheme. Original order failed to qualify as Draft Assessment Order (DAO) under s.144C(1), lacking statutory requirements for assessee response. Department's subsequent corrigendum attempting to retroactively designate order as DAO was ineffective, as 30-day objection period under s.144C(2) had already lapsed. Court rejected Revenue's argument that errors were minor, finding them fundamental to jurisdictional validity. Demand notice under s.156 cannot be nullified through mere corrigendum. Non-compliance with s.144C statutory requirements not protected by s.292BB savings clause. Questions 1-3 answered in assessee's favor, invalidating assessment order.
HC held assessment order invalid due to fundamental procedural defects in implementing Faceless Assessment Scheme. Original order failed to qualify as Draft Assessment Order (DAO) under s.144C(1), lacking statutory requirements for assessee response. Department's subsequent corrigendum attempting to retroactively designate order as DAO was ineffective, as 30-day objection period under s.144C(2) had already lapsed. Court rejected Revenue's argument that errors were minor, finding them fundamental to jurisdictional validity. Demand notice under s.156 cannot be nullified through mere corrigendum. Non-compliance with s.144C statutory requirements not protected by s.292BB savings clause. Questions 1-3 answered in assessee's favor, invalidating assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
