Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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.