Business deductions and transfer pricing issues: tribunal treatment of software write-offs, donation receipts, warranty provisions, and related expens...
Equivalent value attachment under money laundering law upheld where received funds were treated as proceeds of crime and prior-acquired property could...
Arguable jurisdictional defects were identified in reassessment proceedings: the notice under Section 148 was challenged on the ground that only a Faceless Assessing Officer may issue such notices post 29 March 2022, rendering notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer prima facie void; this ground was held sufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction. Separately, the notice gave only thirty days to file a return, whereas a statutory minimum three month period was asserted, which likewise raised a substantial jurisdictional objection. On these bases the High Court entertained the writ, issued rule, and granted interim relief restraining reassessment, demand and penalty notices pending final disposal.
Arguable jurisdictional defects were identified in reassessment proceedings: the notice under Section 148 was challenged on the ground that only a Faceless Assessing Officer may issue such notices post 29 March 2022, rendering notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer prima facie void; this ground was held sufficient to invoke writ jurisdiction. Separately, the notice gave only thirty days to file a return, whereas a statutory minimum three month period was asserted, which likewise raised a substantial jurisdictional objection. On these bases the High Court entertained the writ, issued rule, and granted interim relief restraining reassessment, demand and penalty notices pending final disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
