Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The final assessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer passed it without first serving the draft assessment order, thereby denying the assessee the statutory opportunity to object before the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C. The Court distinguished Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., noting that a draft order had in fact been prepared, so the proceedings were not to be quashed in entirety. Instead, the final assessment order and consequential penalty notice were set aside, the assessee was directed to be served with the draft order, and the statutory objection process was restored, with the intervening period excluded from limitation.
The final assessment order was invalid because the Assessing Officer passed it without first serving the draft assessment order, thereby denying the assessee the statutory opportunity to object before the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C. The Court distinguished Sumitomo Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., noting that a draft order had in fact been prepared, so the proceedings were not to be quashed in entirety. Instead, the final assessment order and consequential penalty notice were set aside, the assessee was directed to be served with the draft order, and the statutory objection process was restored, with the intervening period excluded from limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
