Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
