Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Assessee, a non-resident Indian residing outside India for over 25 years, challenged the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer to issue notice u/s 148 for reassessment proceedings. Evidence showed assessee's residential status as NRI on the date of notice issuance. Faceless Assessment Unit also acknowledged the case pertained to a non-resident individual, requiring assessment at the international charge. ITAT held ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer lacked jurisdiction when issuing the notice on 30.03.2022, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gain without considering the original cost and evidence provided by the assessee, resulting in a perverse order, which ITAT quashed.
Assessee, a non-resident Indian residing outside India for over 25 years, challenged the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer to issue notice u/s 148 for reassessment proceedings. Evidence showed assessee's residential status as NRI on the date of notice issuance. Faceless Assessment Unit also acknowledged the case pertained to a non-resident individual, requiring assessment at the international charge. ITAT held ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer lacked jurisdiction when issuing the notice on 30.03.2022, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gain without considering the original cost and evidence provided by the assessee, resulting in a perverse order, which ITAT quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.