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 ITAT held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid as it failed to comply with the CBDT instructions, specifying only computer-aided scrutiny without clarifying the nature of scrutiny, thereby rendering all consequential proceedings invalid. Additionally, the notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, further invalidating the assessment framed under section 143(3) without a mandatory notice under section 142. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order, affirming that issuance of an invalid notice under section 143(2) vitiates the entire assessment. The assessee's appeal was allowed on both grounds, resulting in the annulment of the assessment proceedings.
The ITAT held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid as it failed to comply with the CBDT instructions, specifying only computer-aided scrutiny without clarifying the nature of scrutiny, thereby rendering all consequential proceedings invalid. Additionally, the notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, further invalidating the assessment framed under section 143(3) without a mandatory notice under section 142. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order, affirming that issuance of an invalid notice under section 143(2) vitiates the entire assessment. The assessee's appeal was allowed on both grounds, resulting in the annulment of the assessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.