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) has valid jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 for reopening of assessment, even in cases of search and seizure u/s 132. The faceless assessment scheme u/s 151A mandates recording satisfaction by the JAO before issuing such notice, but does not preclude the JAO from issuing the notice directly. The Court observed that the scheme aims to eliminate interface between tax authorities and assessees to the extent technologically feasible. The petitioner's challenge to the notice on grounds of lack of jurisdiction was rejected. The Court noted that satisfaction notes were provided, and subsequent proceedings like notice u/s 142(1) were issued by the Verification Unit of the Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioners were advised to pursue remedies before the competent authority and seek virtual hearings if required, ensuring strict compliance with the law.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has valid jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 for reopening of assessment, even in cases of search and seizure u/s 132. The faceless assessment scheme u/s 151A mandates recording satisfaction by the JAO before issuing such notice, but does not preclude the JAO from issuing the notice directly. The Court observed that the scheme aims to eliminate interface between tax authorities and assessees to the extent technologically feasible. The petitioner's challenge to the notice on grounds of lack of jurisdiction was rejected. The Court noted that satisfaction notes were provided, and subsequent proceedings like notice u/s 142(1) were issued by the Verification Unit of the Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioners were advised to pursue remedies before the competent authority and seek virtual hearings if required, ensuring strict compliance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.