Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT held that the doctrine of merger did not apply to the intimation issued u/s 143(1) where the specific adjustments and interest u/s 115P made therein were neither reversed nor adjudicated in the subsequent scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B. Consequently, the intimation u/s 143(1) continued to subsist independently, and a separate appeal against it before CIT(A) was legally maintainable. ITAT found that CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground that the order u/s 143(1) had merged with the later assessment order. ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and directed CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits the grounds raised by the assessee against the intimation u/s 143(1).
ITAT held that the doctrine of merger did not apply to the intimation issued u/s 143(1) where the specific adjustments and interest u/s 115P made therein were neither reversed nor adjudicated in the subsequent scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) r.w.s. 144B. Consequently, the intimation u/s 143(1) continued to subsist independently, and a separate appeal against it before CIT(A) was legally maintainable. ITAT found that CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the ground that the order u/s 143(1) had merged with the later assessment order. ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and directed CIT(A) to adjudicate on merits the grounds raised by the assessee against the intimation u/s 143(1).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.