Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Jurisdiction of AO - Validity of notice issued u/s 143(2) - No objection were filed within one month u/s 124 - The Appellate Tribunal found that the notices were indeed issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, and there was no dispute regarding this fact from the Revenue's side. However, the Revenue relied on Section 292BB, arguing that the absence of objection within the stipulated time period validated their actions. In response, the Tribunal referred to the case of ITO vs. Almak Finance P. Ltd., where it was held that actions taken by authorities lacking jurisdiction are void ab initio. Thus, failure to dispute jurisdiction under Section 124(3) did not preclude the appellant from challenging it later. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the AO lacked jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.
Jurisdiction of AO - Validity of notice issued u/s 143(2) - No objection were filed within one month u/s 124 - The Appellate Tribunal found that the notices were indeed issued by a non-jurisdictional AO, and there was no dispute regarding this fact from the Revenue's side. However, the Revenue relied on Section 292BB, arguing that the absence of objection within the stipulated time period validated their actions. In response, the Tribunal referred to the case of ITO vs. Almak Finance P. Ltd., where it was held that actions taken by authorities lacking jurisdiction are void ab initio. Thus, failure to dispute jurisdiction under Section 124(3) did not preclude the appellant from challenging it later. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the AO lacked jurisdiction, leading to the quashing of the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
