Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The HC quashed the reference made by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 under s. 92CA, along with the notice and approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.12.2019. The court found that the petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to be heard before the case transfer to the TPO, violating para 3.4 of Instruction No. 3 of 2016. The respondent hastily made the proposal on 24.12.2019 after issuing notice under s. 142(1) on 23.12.2019, giving minimal response time. The court determined the purported opportunity of hearing was merely an empty formality, resulting in breach of natural justice principles.
The HC quashed the reference made by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 under s. 92CA, along with the notice and approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.12.2019. The court found that the petitioner was not provided a proper opportunity to be heard before the case transfer to the TPO, violating para 3.4 of Instruction No. 3 of 2016. The respondent hastily made the proposal on 24.12.2019 after issuing notice under s. 142(1) on 23.12.2019, giving minimal response time. The court determined the purported opportunity of hearing was merely an empty formality, resulting in breach of natural justice principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
