PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment. It held that the notice issued u/s 148 was unsigned and therefore non est in law, vitiating the entire reassessment order. ITAT further held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as reasons recorded for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before issuance of notice u/s 143(2), thereby denying the assessee its right to challenge jurisdiction and breaching mandatory procedural safeguards. On merits, ITAT deleted the addition u/s 68, noting that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, bank statements and audited financials of the loan creditor, and had repaid the loan, which the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly consider.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment. It held that the notice issued u/s 148 was unsigned and therefore non est in law, vitiating the entire reassessment order. ITAT further held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as reasons recorded for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before issuance of notice u/s 143(2), thereby denying the assessee its right to challenge jurisdiction and breaching mandatory procedural safeguards. On merits, ITAT deleted the addition u/s 68, noting that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, bank statements and audited financials of the loan creditor, and had repaid the loan, which the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly consider.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.