Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
