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 held in favour of the appellant that reassessment proceedings under s.148 were void for want of valid service of notice. The court found the record lacked the registered-post envelope and that issuance by speed post without acknowledgment did not satisfy the statutory requirement of "post" for invoking the presumption of service under s.27 of the Evidence Act; accordingly the presumption could not be invoked. Further, service by the Income Tax Officer was defective because the notice was not affixed at the assessee's last known address nor personally served as required by Order V r.17 CPC and Part II of s.282(i), rendering service invalid and relief granted to the appellant.
The HC held in favour of the appellant that reassessment proceedings under s.148 were void for want of valid service of notice. The court found the record lacked the registered-post envelope and that issuance by speed post without acknowledgment did not satisfy the statutory requirement of "post" for invoking the presumption of service under s.27 of the Evidence Act; accordingly the presumption could not be invoked. Further, service by the Income Tax Officer was defective because the notice was not affixed at the assessee's last known address nor personally served as required by Order V r.17 CPC and Part II of s.282(i), rendering service invalid and relief granted to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
