Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Allocation of pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 is described as a jurisdictional requirement for issuing a scrutiny notice under section 143(2), rather than a mere procedural formality. For a non-corporate assessee in a metro city whose returned income is below the prescribed limit, jurisdiction lies with the ITO, while a notice issued by the ACIT is treated as lacking legal authority. The notes further state that such an additional legal ground may be admitted when it goes to the root of the matter and requires no further factual verification. Without a fresh notice from the competent officer, the assessment is described as vitiated and liable to be quashed.
Allocation of pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 01/2011 is described as a jurisdictional requirement for issuing a scrutiny notice under section 143(2), rather than a mere procedural formality. For a non-corporate assessee in a metro city whose returned income is below the prescribed limit, jurisdiction lies with the ITO, while a notice issued by the ACIT is treated as lacking legal authority. The notes further state that such an additional legal ground may be admitted when it goes to the root of the matter and requires no further factual verification. Without a fresh notice from the competent officer, the assessment is described as vitiated and liable to be quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.