Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
The High Court held that an officer who had earlier issued audit observations could not thereafter pass the ex parte assessment order on the same matter. As the impugned adjudication orders were made by those very officers, the Court found the assessment to be without proper jurisdiction and quashed both the adjudication orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, including bank attachment. The matter was remitted to a proper officer for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.
The High Court held that an officer who had earlier issued audit observations could not thereafter pass the ex parte assessment order on the same matter. As the impugned adjudication orders were made by those very officers, the Court found the assessment to be without proper jurisdiction and quashed both the adjudication orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, including bank attachment. The matter was remitted to a proper officer for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
