Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
