PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
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 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
