Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
