Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6881 to 6900 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.