Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Wrongful availment and distribution of input tax credit was interfered with because the competent authority had not considered the petitioner's audit report and other material on record. The petitioner claimed the Section 65(6) audit report gave a clean chit for the disputed input tax credit distributed by the ISD for 2018-19 and 2019-20, and the respondents placed no rebuttal to that plea. The High Court held that the impact of the audit report required adjudication, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh decision after considering both sides' submissions. All merits, including the show cause notice and objections, were left open.
Wrongful availment and distribution of input tax credit was interfered with because the competent authority had not considered the petitioner's audit report and other material on record. The petitioner claimed the Section 65(6) audit report gave a clean chit for the disputed input tax credit distributed by the ISD for 2018-19 and 2019-20, and the respondents placed no rebuttal to that plea. The High Court held that the impact of the audit report required adjudication, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh decision after considering both sides' submissions. All merits, including the show cause notice and objections, were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.