Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that notices issued under section 148 and section 148A(b) by the jurisdictional assessing officer, instead of the faceless assessing officer, are invalid and set aside; consequent reassessment orders premised on such notices are quashed. The Tribunal further determined that where the assessing officer, in reassessment proceedings, made no addition on the very issue forming the basis for reopening, the officer lacked jurisdiction to make other additions, rendering the reassessment void. Parties were granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal should controlling decisions of higher courts on the faceless-notice issue necessitate modification of this order.
ITAT held that notices issued under section 148 and section 148A(b) by the jurisdictional assessing officer, instead of the faceless assessing officer, are invalid and set aside; consequent reassessment orders premised on such notices are quashed. The Tribunal further determined that where the assessing officer, in reassessment proceedings, made no addition on the very issue forming the basis for reopening, the officer lacked jurisdiction to make other additions, rendering the reassessment void. Parties were granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal should controlling decisions of higher courts on the faceless-notice issue necessitate modification of this order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.