Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT quashed assessment orders under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 due to jurisdictional defects in notice issuance. The AO issued multiple notices under Section 10(1) for AY 2018-19, but per Section 72(c)'s deeming provisions, undisclosed foreign assets are deemed acquired in the year of notice issuance. Since notices were issued in 2018, assessments should have been for AY 2019-20, not AY 2018-19. The Tribunal held that without proper jurisdiction through valid notice, the AO couldn't pass assessment orders. The protective assessments of 50% amounts were invalidated due to this fundamental jurisdictional error.
ITAT quashed assessment orders under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 due to jurisdictional defects in notice issuance. The AO issued multiple notices under Section 10(1) for AY 2018-19, but per Section 72(c)'s deeming provisions, undisclosed foreign assets are deemed acquired in the year of notice issuance. Since notices were issued in 2018, assessments should have been for AY 2019-20, not AY 2018-19. The Tribunal held that without proper jurisdiction through valid notice, the AO couldn't pass assessment orders. The protective assessments of 50% amounts were invalidated due to this fundamental jurisdictional error.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.