Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The ITAT held that the intimation under section 143(1) issued on 30.03.2019 was invalid as it was passed before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period provided to the assessee for submitting a response, which ended on 22.04.2019. The purported response date of 23.03.2019 was found to be incorrect and inconsistent with the record. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the intimation was bad in law for non-compliance with the statutory procedural requirement. As a result, the disallowance made by the AO pursuant to the impugned intimation was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that the intimation under section 143(1) issued on 30.03.2019 was invalid as it was passed before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period provided to the assessee for submitting a response, which ended on 22.04.2019. The purported response date of 23.03.2019 was found to be incorrect and inconsistent with the record. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the intimation was bad in law for non-compliance with the statutory procedural requirement. As a result, the disallowance made by the AO pursuant to the impugned intimation was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
