Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the petition is maintainable and that issuance of a fresh demand on identical grounds previously examined under Section 61 is impermissible. The court construed Section 61(2) as creating an embargo on further demands, including those under Section 73, where the taxpayer's explanation was accepted; Section 73 contains no non-obstante provision to override Section 61(2). Consequently, the show-cause notice issued under Section 73 and the consequential adjudication were vitiated. The impugned SCN dated 29 May 2024 and the resultant order dated 28 Aug 2024 are quashed, and the petition is disposed of with the petitioner granted relief.
HC held that the petition is maintainable and that issuance of a fresh demand on identical grounds previously examined under Section 61 is impermissible. The court construed Section 61(2) as creating an embargo on further demands, including those under Section 73, where the taxpayer's explanation was accepted; Section 73 contains no non-obstante provision to override Section 61(2). Consequently, the show-cause notice issued under Section 73 and the consequential adjudication were vitiated. The impugned SCN dated 29 May 2024 and the resultant order dated 28 Aug 2024 are quashed, and the petition is disposed of with the petitioner granted relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
