Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
HC held that no draft penalty order was generated under faceless assessment mechanism as required u/s 144B. The demand notice u/s 156 was improperly communicated, rendering the refund adjustment u/s 245 illegal. The court quashed the refund adjustment and remanded the matter, directing respondents to permit petitioner to file reply to show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c), generate draft penalty order after considering objections, and provide opportunity of hearing if requested.
HC held that no draft penalty order was generated under faceless assessment mechanism as required u/s 144B. The demand notice u/s 156 was improperly communicated, rendering the refund adjustment u/s 245 illegal. The court quashed the refund adjustment and remanded the matter, directing respondents to permit petitioner to file reply to show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c), generate draft penalty order after considering objections, and provide opportunity of hearing if requested.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
