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...
The ITAT held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Range head (Addl. CIT, Range-1, Raipur) to perform Assessing Officer functions under section 2(7A) without an order under section 120(4)(b) was invalid. The tribunal found no legal basis for the range head's jurisdiction, referencing the Jindal Power Ltd. case. The revenue's reliance on CBDT instructions and Notification No. 6/2009 was rejected as insufficient to confer legitimate jurisdictional authority. Consequently, the assessment order dated 03.02.2014 framed under section 144 was quashed due to lack of inherent jurisdictional competence.
The ITAT held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Range head (Addl. CIT, Range-1, Raipur) to perform Assessing Officer functions under section 2(7A) without an order under section 120(4)(b) was invalid. The tribunal found no legal basis for the range head's jurisdiction, referencing the Jindal Power Ltd. case. The revenue's reliance on CBDT instructions and Notification No. 6/2009 was rejected as insufficient to confer legitimate jurisdictional authority. Consequently, the assessment order dated 03.02.2014 framed under section 144 was quashed due to lack of inherent jurisdictional competence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
