Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
ITAT determined the assessment order under s.148A(d) for AY 2018-19 was invalid due to improper sanctioning authority approval. The order issued on 06.04.2022 received approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the statutorily required Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as mandated by s.151 for cases beyond three years from assessment year end. Following precedent in Holiday Developers case, ITAT held that PCCIT approval was mandatory since the order fell outside the three-year window. Consequently, both the s.148A(d) order and subsequent s.148 notice were quashed, ruling in assessee's favor due to jurisdictional defect in sanctioning authority.
ITAT determined the assessment order under s.148A(d) for AY 2018-19 was invalid due to improper sanctioning authority approval. The order issued on 06.04.2022 received approval from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the statutorily required Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as mandated by s.151 for cases beyond three years from assessment year end. Following precedent in Holiday Developers case, ITAT held that PCCIT approval was mandatory since the order fell outside the three-year window. Consequently, both the s.148A(d) order and subsequent s.148 notice were quashed, ruling in assessee's favor due to jurisdictional defect in sanctioning authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
