Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
