Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 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 set aside the CPC, Bengaluru intimation under s.143(1) of the Act, holding that the centralized adjustment restricting the assessee's claim of exemption under s.10(10AA) was invalid for failure to comply with the mandatory first proviso to s.143(1)(a). The Tribunal held that prior written or electronic intimation specifying the proposed adjustment and affording the assessee a 30-day opportunity to respond is a statutory precondition and an essential element of audi alteram partem. Absent such prior intimation, the adjustment was held to be ultravires and violative of natural justice. The impugned intimation was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT set aside the CPC, Bengaluru intimation under s.143(1) of the Act, holding that the centralized adjustment restricting the assessee's claim of exemption under s.10(10AA) was invalid for failure to comply with the mandatory first proviso to s.143(1)(a). The Tribunal held that prior written or electronic intimation specifying the proposed adjustment and affording the assessee a 30-day opportunity to respond is a statutory precondition and an essential element of audi alteram partem. Absent such prior intimation, the adjustment was held to be ultravires and violative of natural justice. The impugned intimation was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
