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...
Transfer-pricing comparability filters require fresh arm's-length analysis, while delayed receivables need separate reconsideration with working-capit...
The High Court addressed the validity of an assessment u/s 153A and the jurisdiction for assessment proceedings transfer. The petitioner challenged the transfer from Sangli to Kozhikode, citing lack of mandatory notice and hearing u/s 127(2) and absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the order. The Court found that notice was duly served, giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond, which was not utilized. The absence of DIN is being considered by the Supreme Court, but the transfer was deemed valid as the petitioner's business and recovery were within Kozhikode's jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no errors in the proceedings.
The High Court addressed the validity of an assessment u/s 153A and the jurisdiction for assessment proceedings transfer. The petitioner challenged the transfer from Sangli to Kozhikode, citing lack of mandatory notice and hearing u/s 127(2) and absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the order. The Court found that notice was duly served, giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond, which was not utilized. The absence of DIN is being considered by the Supreme Court, but the transfer was deemed valid as the petitioner's business and recovery were within Kozhikode's jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no errors in the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
