Coercive recovery during GST searches is restrained pending scrutiny, preserving normal business operations and requiring adherence to investigation g...
COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
Page of 4886
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 97710 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Territorial jurisdiction over an income-tax appeal and a related cross-objection is ordinarily determined by the office location of the Assessing Officer who issued the assessment order, rather than the assessee's location or that of the appellate authority. Where the assessment order originated from the Chennai Assessing Officer, the Mumbai Bench lacked jurisdiction over both proceedings. The appeal and cross-objection were dismissed without examination on merits, with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench. Merits remained open, and time spent before the Mumbai Bench may be considered under delay-condonation law.
Territorial jurisdiction over an income-tax appeal and a related cross-objection is ordinarily determined by the office location of the Assessing Officer who issued the assessment order, rather than the assessee's location or that of the appellate authority. Where the assessment order originated from the Chennai Assessing Officer, the Mumbai Bench lacked jurisdiction over both proceedings. The appeal and cross-objection were dismissed without examination on merits, with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench. Merits remained open, and time spent before the Mumbai Bench may be considered under delay-condonation law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.