Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
