Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
ITAT held that the assessment reopening against an NRI assessee was invalid due to jurisdictional defects. The AO from Ward-34(3)(5), Mumbai lacked jurisdiction over the NRI assessee's case, which should have been handled by International Taxation authorities. Despite the Revenue's attempt to invoke section 292BB to cure procedural defects, ITAT found no merit in this argument, noting the AO was aware of the assessee's NRI status when issuing the section 148 notice. Following the precedent in Nimir Kishore Mehta, ITAT concluded that all proceedings including the section 148A show cause notice, order under section 148A(d), and subsequent section 148 notice were conducted without proper jurisdiction and were therefore bad in law. Consequently, the entire reopening proceedings were quashed and decided in favor of the assessee.
ITAT held that the assessment reopening against an NRI assessee was invalid due to jurisdictional defects. The AO from Ward-34(3)(5), Mumbai lacked jurisdiction over the NRI assessee's case, which should have been handled by International Taxation authorities. Despite the Revenue's attempt to invoke section 292BB to cure procedural defects, ITAT found no merit in this argument, noting the AO was aware of the assessee's NRI status when issuing the section 148 notice. Following the precedent in Nimir Kishore Mehta, ITAT concluded that all proceedings including the section 148A show cause notice, order under section 148A(d), and subsequent section 148 notice were conducted without proper jurisdiction and were therefore bad in law. Consequently, the entire reopening proceedings were quashed and decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
