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 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
