Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
An unsigned notice issued under section 143(2) was held invalid because signing in electronic form was treated as a mandatory requirement under section 282A(1), not a mere formality. As the notice was void ab initio, it could not confer jurisdiction on the AO to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The assessment was therefore quashed, and the merits grounds were left academic and not examined.
An unsigned notice issued under section 143(2) was held invalid because signing in electronic form was treated as a mandatory requirement under section 282A(1), not a mere formality. As the notice was void ab initio, it could not confer jurisdiction on the AO to complete scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The assessment was therefore quashed, and the merits grounds were left academic and not examined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.