Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the writ petition challenging reassessment notices issued under sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that notices issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer should have been processed in a faceless manner as mandated by the Finance Act 2021. The HC followed its earlier precedent in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy, which held that proceedings under sections 148A and 148 conducted in non-faceless manner violated section 151A read with Notification 18/2022. The court quashed the impugned notices, noting that despite 16 months since the precedent judgment, the Income Tax Department continued issuing similar notices contravening statutory amendments. The relief granted remains subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court appeal against the Kankanala Ravindra Reddy decision.
The HC allowed the writ petition challenging reassessment notices issued under sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner contended that notices issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer should have been processed in a faceless manner as mandated by the Finance Act 2021. The HC followed its earlier precedent in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy, which held that proceedings under sections 148A and 148 conducted in non-faceless manner violated section 151A read with Notification 18/2022. The court quashed the impugned notices, noting that despite 16 months since the precedent judgment, the Income Tax Department continued issuing similar notices contravening statutory amendments. The relief granted remains subject to the outcome of the pending Supreme Court appeal against the Kankanala Ravindra Reddy decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.