Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
AO had no jurisdiction to frame the final assessment order on 27.01.2020 u/s. 144(3) of the Act, since he was divested of jurisdiction to pass final order between 27.01.2020 to 31.01.2020. Even the AO could not have framed the final order u/s. 144C(3) on 27.01.2020 because the assessee had filed its objection before the DRP on 24.01.2020, the DRP is in seisn of the case of assessee and between 24.01.2020 and till the DRP gives direction as per section 144C(5) AO does not enjoy jurisdiction over the assessee’s case for AY 2016-17. - AT
AO had no jurisdiction to frame the final assessment order on 27.01.2020 u/s. 144(3) of the Act, since he was divested of jurisdiction to pass final order between 27.01.2020 to 31.01.2020. Even the AO could not have framed the final order u/s. 144C(3) on 27.01.2020 because the assessee had filed its objection before the DRP on 24.01.2020, the DRP is in seisn of the case of assessee and between 24.01.2020 and till the DRP gives direction as per section 144C(5) AO does not enjoy jurisdiction over the assessee’s case for AY 2016-17. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
