Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT quashed approvals granted under section 153D, finding them procedurally defective. The approving JCIT had mechanically approved draft assessment orders without demonstrating application of mind, merely stating "Following draft assessment orders are being approved" without reasons or evidence of examining the material. The Tribunal noted that protective and substantive assessments against the company and its Director were approved in separate letters rather than together, with the protective addition approval preceding the substantive one, further indicating mechanical processing. The JCIT's subsequent letter revealed a misconception that approval was "only a formal culmination" rather than a substantive requirement. The ITAT emphasized that approval letters must be speaking orders demonstrating proper application of mind. Approvals were vitiated and quashed in favor of the assessee.
The ITAT quashed approvals granted under section 153D, finding them procedurally defective. The approving JCIT had mechanically approved draft assessment orders without demonstrating application of mind, merely stating "Following draft assessment orders are being approved" without reasons or evidence of examining the material. The Tribunal noted that protective and substantive assessments against the company and its Director were approved in separate letters rather than together, with the protective addition approval preceding the substantive one, further indicating mechanical processing. The JCIT's subsequent letter revealed a misconception that approval was "only a formal culmination" rather than a substantive requirement. The ITAT emphasized that approval letters must be speaking orders demonstrating proper application of mind. Approvals were vitiated and quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
