Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
HC held that two assessment orders could not survive for the same tax period and same discrepancies against the same assessee. One impugned order for 2021-2022 was therefore quashed as duplicative, while the Department was left free to proceed under the other order, which also covered an additional discrepancy. Separately, an ex parte assessment was set aside on equitable grounds because the assessee claimed lack of awareness of the notice after GST registration cancellation, the merits had been explained, and a substantial part of the disputed tax had already been recovered. That matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to file reply and documents, and the bank attachment was lifted.
HC held that two assessment orders could not survive for the same tax period and same discrepancies against the same assessee. One impugned order for 2021-2022 was therefore quashed as duplicative, while the Department was left free to proceed under the other order, which also covered an additional discrepancy. Separately, an ex parte assessment was set aside on equitable grounds because the assessee claimed lack of awareness of the notice after GST registration cancellation, the merits had been explained, and a substantial part of the disputed tax had already been recovered. That matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to file reply and documents, and the bank attachment was lifted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
