https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463325 ITAT held the intimation under s.143(1)(a) violated audi alteram partem because no show-cause notice was issued, and the 154 order was non-speaking; the CPC's adjustment denying carry-forward of long-term capital loss could not be sustained. The FAA's characterization of the defect as mere procedural irregularity and its direction to remand under s.250/s.251 were held improper. As the return claiming set-off and carry-forward complied with statutory requirements and no adverse findings on genuineness existed, the AO is directed to allow the carry-forward of the long-term capital loss. en-us Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:41:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463325 ITAT held the intimation under s.143(1)(a) violated audi alteram partem because no show-cause notice was issued, and the 154 order was non-speaking; the CPC's adjustment denying carry-forward of long-term capital loss could not be sustained. The FAA's characterization of the defect as mere procedural irregularity and its direction to remand under s.250/s.251 were held improper. As the return claiming set-off and carry-forward complied with statutory requirements and no adverse findings on genuineness existed, the AO is directed to allow the carry-forward of the long-term capital loss. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463325