Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
Rejection of the waiver application under Section 128A(1) could not stand because it was based on an incorrect statutory premise: the authority treated the underlying assessment as one under Section 74, whereas the record showed it had been passed under Section 73 and this was confirmed by the respondent. The Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner. Any dispute about whether the petitioner had made sufficient payment was left open for reconsideration on remand, and the authority was left free to proceed in accordance with law if full payment had not in fact been made.
Rejection of the waiver application under Section 128A(1) could not stand because it was based on an incorrect statutory premise: the authority treated the underlying assessment as one under Section 74, whereas the record showed it had been passed under Section 73 and this was confirmed by the respondent. The Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner. Any dispute about whether the petitioner had made sufficient payment was left open for reconsideration on remand, and the authority was left free to proceed in accordance with law if full payment had not in fact been made.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
