Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
HC held that the CIT(A)'s order directing deletion of additions relating to unexplained sundry creditors was valid. The AO's amendment under Section 154 was procedurally flawed as no notice was issued to the assessee, violating statutory requirements of Section 154(3). The court found a clear violation of natural justice principles by not providing an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the order dated February 7, 2025 was set aside, and the authorities were directed to implement the previous order dated January 3, 2024 within four weeks, effectively reinstating the original appellate order deleting the contested additions.
HC held that the CIT(A)'s order directing deletion of additions relating to unexplained sundry creditors was valid. The AO's amendment under Section 154 was procedurally flawed as no notice was issued to the assessee, violating statutory requirements of Section 154(3). The court found a clear violation of natural justice principles by not providing an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the order dated February 7, 2025 was set aside, and the authorities were directed to implement the previous order dated January 3, 2024 within four weeks, effectively reinstating the original appellate order deleting the contested additions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
