Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 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 examined the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the prescribed income-tax authority to issue notices u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. It held that either the AO or the prescribed authority can issue such notices, as evident from the expression "as the case may be" in Section 143(2). The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is empowered u/r 12E of the Income Tax Rules to authorize an Income Tax Officer as the prescribed authority for issuing notices u/s 143(2). In the present case, the CBDT had authorized the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi, to act as the prescribed authority. Therefore, the notice issued by this officer u/s 143(2) was valid and within jurisdiction. The contention that only National Faceless Assessment Centre officers can issue such notices was rejected as unsupported by the provisions. The prescribed authority can issue, not merely serve, notices u/s 143(2). Once the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) is established, the AO cannot be faulted for completing the assessment.
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the prescribed income-tax authority to issue notices u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. It held that either the AO or the prescribed authority can issue such notices, as evident from the expression "as the case may be" in Section 143(2). The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) is empowered u/r 12E of the Income Tax Rules to authorize an Income Tax Officer as the prescribed authority for issuing notices u/s 143(2). In the present case, the CBDT had authorized the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi, to act as the prescribed authority. Therefore, the notice issued by this officer u/s 143(2) was valid and within jurisdiction. The contention that only National Faceless Assessment Centre officers can issue such notices was rejected as unsupported by the provisions. The prescribed authority can issue, not merely serve, notices u/s 143(2). Once the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) is established, the AO cannot be faulted for completing the assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
