Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The ITAT held that the assessment framed by the ITO-2(1), Raipur under section 143(3) was without valid jurisdiction as no valid transfer order under section 127 was passed by the competent authority. The notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO-1(1), Raipur, creating ambiguity and denying the assessee a fair opportunity to defend. The Tribunal emphasized that any ambiguity in hearing notices preventing effective defense renders the proceedings arbitrary and invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 was quashed for lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that the assessment framed by the ITO-2(1), Raipur under section 143(3) was without valid jurisdiction as no valid transfer order under section 127 was passed by the competent authority. The notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO-1(1), Raipur, creating ambiguity and denying the assessee a fair opportunity to defend. The Tribunal emphasized that any ambiguity in hearing notices preventing effective defense renders the proceedings arbitrary and invalid. Consequently, the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 was quashed for lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
