Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Applying precedent distinguishing clerical errors from jurisdictional defects, the court held that an assessment framed in the name and PAN of an amalgamating non existent entity constitutes a substantive illegality and is void ab initio. Because the assessing officer had been informed of the amalgamation before the final order, the defect was held to be jurisdictional and not a curable procedural mistake; statutory remedial provision Section 292B and alleged ITBA/system glitches cannot validate such an assessment. The tribunal's quashing of the final assessment was therefore sustained and the appeal dismissed.
Applying precedent distinguishing clerical errors from jurisdictional defects, the court held that an assessment framed in the name and PAN of an amalgamating non existent entity constitutes a substantive illegality and is void ab initio. Because the assessing officer had been informed of the amalgamation before the final order, the defect was held to be jurisdictional and not a curable procedural mistake; statutory remedial provision Section 292B and alleged ITBA/system glitches cannot validate such an assessment. The tribunal's quashing of the final assessment was therefore sustained and the appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
