Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC quashed the notice issued u/s 143(2) by the JAO for AY 2023-24, holding that the JAO lacked jurisdiction. As per section 144B(1)(iii), for scrutiny assessment under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, the notice u/s 143(2) is to be issued by the NFAC, not the JAO. The JAO can issue such notice only where notice u/s 148 has already been issued for that AY, which was not the case here. Mere approval from the Pr. CIT cannot confer jurisdiction on the JAO to issue the impugned notice.
The HC quashed the notice issued u/s 143(2) by the JAO for AY 2023-24, holding that the JAO lacked jurisdiction. As per section 144B(1)(iii), for scrutiny assessment under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, the notice u/s 143(2) is to be issued by the NFAC, not the JAO. The JAO can issue such notice only where notice u/s 148 has already been issued for that AY, which was not the case here. Mere approval from the Pr. CIT cannot confer jurisdiction on the JAO to issue the impugned notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
