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...
HC examined the challenge to an assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r/w s.144B on two grounds. On the first, alleging breach of natural justice, HC held against Assessee A, noting repeated show-cause notices, failure to furnish PAN, addresses, and details to establish creditworthiness, and thus no denial of fair opportunity. On the second, alleging non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment under s.144B (effective from 01.04.2021), HC found Revenue had offered no justification for not following the faceless procedure and was silent in its counter. Holding the faceless regime mandatory, HC applied settled law, declared the assessment proceedings and order unsustainable, and quashed/set aside the impugned assessment, thereby allowing the petition on this ground in favour of Assessee A and against Revenue.
HC examined the challenge to an assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r/w s.144B on two grounds. On the first, alleging breach of natural justice, HC held against Assessee A, noting repeated show-cause notices, failure to furnish PAN, addresses, and details to establish creditworthiness, and thus no denial of fair opportunity. On the second, alleging non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment under s.144B (effective from 01.04.2021), HC found Revenue had offered no justification for not following the faceless procedure and was silent in its counter. Holding the faceless regime mandatory, HC applied settled law, declared the assessment proceedings and order unsustainable, and quashed/set aside the impugned assessment, thereby allowing the petition on this ground in favour of Assessee A and against Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.