ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The HC quashed the Audit Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025 and the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued in Form VAT-306 as void for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court held the AVR was invalid because Section 41(4)'s mandatory time-limit was not complied with; consequently the Assessing Authority could not lawfully invoke Section 42 after having earlier proceeded under Section 43. Section 49(2) cannot be used to cure an intra-statutory jurisdictional error where the authority erroneously chose Section 43 over Section 42. All proceedings and consequential acts founded on the invalid AVR and the delayed Form VAT-306 notice therefore collapsed and the petition was allowed.
The HC quashed the Audit Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025 and the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued in Form VAT-306 as void for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court held the AVR was invalid because Section 41(4)'s mandatory time-limit was not complied with; consequently the Assessing Authority could not lawfully invoke Section 42 after having earlier proceeded under Section 43. Section 49(2) cannot be used to cure an intra-statutory jurisdictional error where the authority erroneously chose Section 43 over Section 42. All proceedings and consequential acts founded on the invalid AVR and the delayed Form VAT-306 notice therefore collapsed and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
