Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3101 to 3120 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment notices issued u/s 148 for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 were time-barred by limitation. Withdrawal of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was invalid as there were no valid pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The second proviso to section 143(3), allowing the Assessing Officer to make a reference, was applicable only from assessment year 2022-23 onwards. The PCIT lacked jurisdiction, as the Commissioner (Exemption) with territorial jurisdiction should have approved or withdrawn the approval. The Appellate Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, quashing the PCIT's orders withdrawing approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) due to lack of jurisdiction and invalid reassessment proceedings.
Reassessment notices issued u/s 148 for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 were time-barred by limitation. Withdrawal of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was invalid as there were no valid pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The second proviso to section 143(3), allowing the Assessing Officer to make a reference, was applicable only from assessment year 2022-23 onwards. The PCIT lacked jurisdiction, as the Commissioner (Exemption) with territorial jurisdiction should have approved or withdrawn the approval. The Appellate Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, quashing the PCIT's orders withdrawing approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) due to lack of jurisdiction and invalid reassessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
