SEZ-unit profit deduction covers voluntary transfer-pricing adjustments, while exempt-income costs, foreign-exchange loss and ITeS comparables are exa...
Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
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 4879 
