Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.