Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
