Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is not permitted to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, as it would violate the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates faceless assessment. The Court relied on recent decisions in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hexaware Technology Ltd., where it was established that the faceless assessment regime u/s 151A excludes the JAO's jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148. The Court clarified that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuing notices u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. The Court held that when an authority acts contrary to law, the act is required to be quashed as invalid, and the assessee need not establish prejudice, as the unlawful act itself causes prejudice. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law, and when the Income Tax Authority proposes action without following due process, it results in prejudice to the assessee. The Court decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is not permitted to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, as it would violate the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates faceless assessment. The Court relied on recent decisions in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hexaware Technology Ltd., where it was established that the faceless assessment regime u/s 151A excludes the JAO's jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148. The Court clarified that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuing notices u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. The Court held that when an authority acts contrary to law, the act is required to be quashed as invalid, and the assessee need not establish prejudice, as the unlawful act itself causes prejudice. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law, and when the Income Tax Authority proposes action without following due process, it results in prejudice to the assessee. The Court decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.