Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Where a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) expressly accepted the returned income and made no addition or disallowance, the computation sheet could not override the assessment order. Once the regular assessment was completed, the earlier intimation under section 143(1) merged into it and lost independent existence, so the Assessing Officer could not rely on that earlier adjustment to justify a higher assessed income. The Tribunal further held that revising total income on these facts was not a mistake apparent from the record but a substantive re-determination of income, making section 154 unavailable. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the income had to remain as determined in the scrutiny assessment.
Where a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) expressly accepted the returned income and made no addition or disallowance, the computation sheet could not override the assessment order. Once the regular assessment was completed, the earlier intimation under section 143(1) merged into it and lost independent existence, so the Assessing Officer could not rely on that earlier adjustment to justify a higher assessed income. The Tribunal further held that revising total income on these facts was not a mistake apparent from the record but a substantive re-determination of income, making section 154 unavailable. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the income had to remain as determined in the scrutiny assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
