Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The High Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction in a case involving the issuance of two show cause notices to an individual for different entities. The petitioner argued that once a notice was issued to them individually, a separate notice could not be issued for their proprietorship concern by a different Commissionerate. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate where the proprietorship was situated was valid. The earlier notice to the individual did not affect the notice to the firm, and the Commissionerate had the authority to examine the actions of the firm. The petitioner was advised to respond to the show cause notice for the firm. The Court found no grounds to interfere, and the appeal was dismissed.
The High Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction in a case involving the issuance of two show cause notices to an individual for different entities. The petitioner argued that once a notice was issued to them individually, a separate notice could not be issued for their proprietorship concern by a different Commissionerate. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate where the proprietorship was situated was valid. The earlier notice to the individual did not affect the notice to the firm, and the Commissionerate had the authority to examine the actions of the firm. The petitioner was advised to respond to the show cause notice for the firm. The Court found no grounds to interfere, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
