Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of notice u/s 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional AO. The initial notice was issued by an ITO who did not have valid jurisdiction over the case due to the income threshold. The subsequent assessment order by DCIT, based on the invalid notice, was deemed unsustainable. The objection period for jurisdiction was analyzed, citing a relevant case. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order by DCIT, relying on the improper notice, must be quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed the issue of notice u/s 143(2) issued by a non-jurisdictional AO. The initial notice was issued by an ITO who did not have valid jurisdiction over the case due to the income threshold. The subsequent assessment order by DCIT, based on the invalid notice, was deemed unsustainable. The objection period for jurisdiction was analyzed, citing a relevant case. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order by DCIT, relying on the improper notice, must be quashed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.