Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
281 to 300 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.