Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The HC invalidated the assessment framed under section 143(3) due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under section 143(2)(ii), as the notice was not served within twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. The court relied on established Supreme Court precedent affirming the necessity of timely issuance of the notice. The respondent's objection to the framing of a substantial question of law at the hearing was dismissed, with the HC affirming its authority to frame such questions under section 260-A(4). Consequently, the question of law was decided in favor of the assessee, resulting in the quashing of the assessment order.
The HC invalidated the assessment framed under section 143(3) due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under section 143(2)(ii), as the notice was not served within twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. The court relied on established Supreme Court precedent affirming the necessity of timely issuance of the notice. The respondent's objection to the framing of a substantial question of law at the hearing was dismissed, with the HC affirming its authority to frame such questions under section 260-A(4). Consequently, the question of law was decided in favor of the assessee, resulting in the quashing of the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
