Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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 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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
