Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>High Court sets final hearing to analyze jurisdiction, CBDT compliance, and issues raised by Revenue and assessee.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Versus M/s Crystal Phosphates Ltd</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Versus M/s Crystal Phosphates Ltd - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of ITAT New Delhi in quashing notice and assessment.2. Compliance with CBDT instructions for selection of cases for scrutiny.3. Adjudication of issues raised by Revenue and assessee.Analysis:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of ITAT New Delhi in quashing notice and assessmentThe High Court considered whether the ITAT New Delhi was correct in quashing the notice and assessment made in the case of the assessee. The primary contention revolved around the satisfaction of CBDT instructions for assumption of jurisdiction. The Court examined the legality of the ITAT's decision and whether the case was rightly picked up for scrutiny based on CBDT guidelines. The Court sought to determine if the ITAT's actions were justified in light of the relevant legal provisions.Issue 2: Compliance with CBDT instructions for selection of cases for scrutinyAnother significant issue addressed by the Court was the compliance with CBDT instructions for the selection of cases for scrutiny. The Court delved into the specifics of the CBDT guidelines for the financial year 2007-08 and scrutinized whether the case of the assessee met the criteria outlined in the instructions. The Court analyzed the interpretation of the instructions by the ITAT and assessed whether the ITAT's decision to quash the notice and assessment aligned with the CBDT guidelines.Issue 3: Adjudication of issues raised by Revenue and assesseeThe Court also examined whether the ITAT New Delhi was correct in quashing the notice and assessment without adjudicating upon the issues raised by both the Revenue and the assessee in their respective appeals before the Tribunal. The Court considered the importance of addressing the issues raised by both parties and evaluated whether the ITAT's decision to quash the notice and assessment without proper adjudication was legally sound.In conclusion, the High Court scheduled the matter for final hearing to delve deeper into the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal. The Court's analysis focused on the jurisdiction of the ITAT, compliance with CBDT instructions, and the necessity of adjudicating upon the issues raised by both the Revenue and the assessee. The detailed examination of these issues aimed to ensure a fair and just resolution in the legal proceedings.