Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment after the expiry of 30 days from the date of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The questions pertain to whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the assessment order despite the assessee's participation in the proceedings without raising the jurisdictional issue within the time limit u/s 124(3)(a), and whether the Tribunal's order is perverse for ignoring the ratio laid down in DCIT (Exemption) Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, wherein Section 124(3) precludes the assessee from questioning the AO's jurisdiction if not invoked within the specified time frame. The appellant is directed to file requisite documents, and service of notice on the respondent's advocates is waived.
The appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment after the expiry of 30 days from the date of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The questions pertain to whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the assessment order despite the assessee's participation in the proceedings without raising the jurisdictional issue within the time limit u/s 124(3)(a), and whether the Tribunal's order is perverse for ignoring the ratio laid down in DCIT (Exemption) Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, wherein Section 124(3) precludes the assessee from questioning the AO's jurisdiction if not invoked within the specified time frame. The appellant is directed to file requisite documents, and service of notice on the respondent's advocates is waived.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.