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 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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
