Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) had suo moto transferred the assessment to Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2) Noida. The appellant contended that the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-40(1), Delhi and another such notice was issued by ITO, Ward-2(2), Noida despite the assessment proceedings for the relevant Assessment Year being pending with ITO, Ward-70(2), Delhi. The Tribunal held that even though the assessee had mentioned the Noida address in the Income Tax Return and requested the transfer to Delhi, the assessment is not vitiated. However, the Revenue failed to justify and establish the validity of issuance of the notice u/s 143(1) by ITO, Ward 40(1) on 20.09.2016. The Tribunal found no justification for how the Noida Office transferred the case to Ward 40(1), Delhi, which ultimately reached Ward 8(2), Delhi, from where the final assessment order was passed. The Tribunal held that it is not a case of concurrent jurisdiction, but rather a whimsical exercise of jurisdiction by the AOs in transferring the assessment. The assessee's objections to the assumption of jurisdiction were rightly raised and considered by the assessing officers. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
The jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) had suo moto transferred the assessment to Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2) Noida. The appellant contended that the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-40(1), Delhi and another such notice was issued by ITO, Ward-2(2), Noida despite the assessment proceedings for the relevant Assessment Year being pending with ITO, Ward-70(2), Delhi. The Tribunal held that even though the assessee had mentioned the Noida address in the Income Tax Return and requested the transfer to Delhi, the assessment is not vitiated. However, the Revenue failed to justify and establish the validity of issuance of the notice u/s 143(1) by ITO, Ward 40(1) on 20.09.2016. The Tribunal found no justification for how the Noida Office transferred the case to Ward 40(1), Delhi, which ultimately reached Ward 8(2), Delhi, from where the final assessment order was passed. The Tribunal held that it is not a case of concurrent jurisdiction, but rather a whimsical exercise of jurisdiction by the AOs in transferring the assessment. The assessee's objections to the assumption of jurisdiction were rightly raised and considered by the assessing officers. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
