Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Transfer of jurisdiction from Faridabad to Delhi was held invalid because the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer order was made. Notices under section 143(2) issued by Delhi officers were therefore treated as without valid jurisdiction and ineffective for the assessment year concerned. After the transfer order was cancelled, jurisdiction reverted to the original Assessing Officer at Faridabad, but that officer also completed the assessment without first issuing a valid section 143(2) notice. The assessment was consequently quashed for a foundational jurisdictional defect, and the merits were left undecided.
Transfer of jurisdiction from Faridabad to Delhi was held invalid because the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the transfer order was made. Notices under section 143(2) issued by Delhi officers were therefore treated as without valid jurisdiction and ineffective for the assessment year concerned. After the transfer order was cancelled, jurisdiction reverted to the original Assessing Officer at Faridabad, but that officer also completed the assessment without first issuing a valid section 143(2) notice. The assessment was consequently quashed for a foundational jurisdictional defect, and the merits were left undecided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
