Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices u/s 148, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 151A read with the Central Government's notification dated March 29, 2022. The court observed that the JAO disregarded the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) involving the very amounts in question, which amounted to a travesty of law and nullified the binding effect of the appellate authority's orders. The court criticized the JAO and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for acting with gross non-application of mind and mechanically according approval for issuing the notices, without considering the relevant materials on record. The court deemed it a fit case to grant relief to the petitioner and deprecated the untenable stand taken by the respondents in disregarding the court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The court imposed personal costs of Rs. 25,000 each on the JAO and the Chief Commissioner for their conduct.
The court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices u/s 148, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 151A read with the Central Government's notification dated March 29, 2022. The court observed that the JAO disregarded the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) involving the very amounts in question, which amounted to a travesty of law and nullified the binding effect of the appellate authority's orders. The court criticized the JAO and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for acting with gross non-application of mind and mechanically according approval for issuing the notices, without considering the relevant materials on record. The court deemed it a fit case to grant relief to the petitioner and deprecated the untenable stand taken by the respondents in disregarding the court's decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The court imposed personal costs of Rs. 25,000 each on the JAO and the Chief Commissioner for their conduct.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4878 
