Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
After the assessee filed a return in response to notice under section 148, the ITAT held that issuance of notice under section 143(2) was mandatory before completing reassessment to the assessee's detriment. The Tribunal treated the omission as a jurisdictional defect, not a curable procedural irregularity, and held that section 292BB cannot cure the complete absence of notice, only defects in service where notice has already been issued. Since no section 143(2) notice was issued after the return was filed and acted upon, the reassessment order was annulled.
After the assessee filed a return in response to notice under section 148, the ITAT held that issuance of notice under section 143(2) was mandatory before completing reassessment to the assessee's detriment. The Tribunal treated the omission as a jurisdictional defect, not a curable procedural irregularity, and held that section 292BB cannot cure the complete absence of notice, only defects in service where notice has already been issued. Since no section 143(2) notice was issued after the return was filed and acted upon, the reassessment order was annulled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.