Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
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.