Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The ITAT held that jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) and to frame assessment under section 143(3) lies exclusively with the DCIT/ACIT of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, and not with the ITO, Ward 1(4). The assessment framed by the ITO, Ward 1(4), was therefore without jurisdiction, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 was quashed. Since the assessment was invalid, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were declared non est in law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that any exercise of power imposing financial liability must be within the legally prescribed jurisdiction to be valid.
The ITAT held that jurisdiction to issue notice under section 143(2) and to frame assessment under section 143(3) lies exclusively with the DCIT/ACIT of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, and not with the ITO, Ward 1(4). The assessment framed by the ITO, Ward 1(4), was therefore without jurisdiction, rendering it void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 was quashed. Since the assessment was invalid, all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were declared non est in law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that any exercise of power imposing financial liability must be within the legally prescribed jurisdiction to be valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
