Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Export Obligation Discharge Certificates for EPCG compliance cannot be questioned by Customs unless DGFT adjudicates and cancels them, so demands quas...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6561 to 6580 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of assessment proceedings under faceless assessment...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural unfairness.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Validity of assessment proceedings under faceless assessment rules is challenged where a jurisdictional assessing officer intervened during remand, causing procedural irregularity and violation of principles of natural justice; the intervention by the jurisdictional AO was unnecessary and rendered the hearing futile, and a one-day opportunity to reply was held inadequate, resulting in quashing of the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2024. The decision underscores that remand directions must be adhered to, that change of AO mid-proceedings can vitiate the process if it breaches procedural fairness, and that adequate opportunity to be heard is mandatory.
Validity of assessment proceedings under faceless assessment rules is challenged where a jurisdictional assessing officer intervened during remand, causing procedural irregularity and violation of principles of natural justice; the intervention by the jurisdictional AO was unnecessary and rendered the hearing futile, and a one-day opportunity to reply was held inadequate, resulting in quashing of the impugned assessment order dated 10.12.2024. The decision underscores that remand directions must be adhered to, that change of AO mid-proceedings can vitiate the process if it breaches procedural fairness, and that adequate opportunity to be heard is mandatory.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
