Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order passed under s.148A(d) and the notice issued under s.148 for AY 2017-18. The court accepted respondents' affidavits acknowledging that the PAN database was not linked to the Non-Filer case-selection procedure and that business/investment entries reported by third parties are flagged to jurisdictional officers without regard to PAN status. The order found the notice was grounded on a PAN deactivated since 2009, and held the Assessing Officer failed to apply independent mind or verify the petitioner's disclosures that transactions were reflected under an active PAN. The petition was allowed on these grounds.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
