Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 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" ?
Faceless assessment provisions u/s 151A require notice u/s 148 for income escaping assessment to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), not Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Court held JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notice, as it would breach Section 151A. FAO and JAO cannot have concurrent jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notice or passing assessment/reassessment orders, as specific jurisdiction is assigned to either FAO or JAO under faceless assessment scheme, excluding the other. Allowing concurrent jurisdiction would render faceless proceedings redundant and create chaos. Since JAO admittedly lacked jurisdiction, the writ petition challenging Section 148 notice issued by JAO was allowed.
Faceless assessment provisions u/s 151A require notice u/s 148 for income escaping assessment to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), not Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Court held JAO lacks jurisdiction to issue Section 148 notice, as it would breach Section 151A. FAO and JAO cannot have concurrent jurisdiction for issuing Section 148 notice or passing assessment/reassessment orders, as specific jurisdiction is assigned to either FAO or JAO under faceless assessment scheme, excluding the other. Allowing concurrent jurisdiction would render faceless proceedings redundant and create chaos. Since JAO admittedly lacked jurisdiction, the writ petition challenging Section 148 notice issued by JAO was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.