Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that notices issued under section 143(2) on an address not reflected in the ITR were invalid where the assessee had provided and the AO had acknowledged the correct address; reliance by the lower authority on addresses from MCA or PAN records could not supplant a specifically intimated last known address. The Tribunal held that the presumption of service by substituted methods requires that the notice be sent to the last known correct address communicated to the AO, and distinguished the precedent relied upon by the CIT(A) as inapplicable on the facts. Consequently the assessment communication founded on service at the incorrect address was set aside.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that notices issued under section 143(2) on an address not reflected in the ITR were invalid where the assessee had provided and the AO had acknowledged the correct address; reliance by the lower authority on addresses from MCA or PAN records could not supplant a specifically intimated last known address. The Tribunal held that the presumption of service by substituted methods requires that the notice be sent to the last known correct address communicated to the AO, and distinguished the precedent relied upon by the CIT(A) as inapplicable on the facts. Consequently the assessment communication founded on service at the incorrect address was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.