Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1101 to 1120 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was set aside because the assessee's reply was not considered and the position on the adjournment request was not clearly communicated. The Court held that, where an adjournment is sought, the Assessing Officer must communicate whether it is granted and, if so, the next date of hearing through the prescribed mode. Since the assessee filed a reply within the time stated and the impugned order made no reference to that reply or the accompanying submissions, the order breached the right of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. The assessment and demand notice were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after due hearing.
An assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B was set aside because the assessee's reply was not considered and the position on the adjournment request was not clearly communicated. The Court held that, where an adjournment is sought, the Assessing Officer must communicate whether it is granted and, if so, the next date of hearing through the prescribed mode. Since the assessee filed a reply within the time stated and the impugned order made no reference to that reply or the accompanying submissions, the order breached the right of hearing and violated principles of natural justice. The assessment and demand notice were quashed and the matter remitted for fresh assessment after due hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.