Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
