Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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 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 amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A, which has brought a regime of faceless assessment. As per the decision in Hexaware Technology Ltd., the provisions of Section 151A clearly mandate faceless assessment. There is no concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuance of notice u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Scheme dated 29th March 2022, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. In the present case, the Revenue has not complied with the Scheme notified u/s 151A(2), which governs the conduct of proceedings u/ss 148A and 148. The explicit declaration of the law in Hexaware renders the grievance of the Assessee sustainable, and the manner of initiating proceedings vitiates the proceedings.
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 amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A, which has brought a regime of faceless assessment. As per the decision in Hexaware Technology Ltd., the provisions of Section 151A clearly mandate faceless assessment. There is no concurrent jurisdiction of the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuance of notice u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction has been assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Scheme dated 29th March 2022, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. In the present case, the Revenue has not complied with the Scheme notified u/s 151A(2), which governs the conduct of proceedings u/ss 148A and 148. The explicit declaration of the law in Hexaware renders the grievance of the Assessee sustainable, and the manner of initiating proceedings vitiates the proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
