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 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.