Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) violated statutory procedure under section 154 by failing to serve notice to the assessee before passing rectification orders for AY 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The tribunal found a clear breach of natural justice, emphasizing that the AO cannot disregard mandatory procedural requirements. The department's argument that the notice omission caused no prejudice was rejected, with the tribunal noting such arbitrary actions offend constitutional principles of fairness. Consequently, the impugned rectification orders were set aside, upholding the assessee's right to be heard before any assessment modification.
The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer (AO) violated statutory procedure under section 154 by failing to serve notice to the assessee before passing rectification orders for AY 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The tribunal found a clear breach of natural justice, emphasizing that the AO cannot disregard mandatory procedural requirements. The department's argument that the notice omission caused no prejudice was rejected, with the tribunal noting such arbitrary actions offend constitutional principles of fairness. Consequently, the impugned rectification orders were set aside, upholding the assessee's right to be heard before any assessment modification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.