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...
The ITAT held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid as the notice was issued by an AO lacking jurisdiction. The AO at Bareilly, who issued the notice, failed to properly ascertain jurisdiction despite access to the assessee's PAN details, rendering the notice non-est in law. The subsequent transfer of proceedings to the correct AO at Lucknow occurred after the limitation period for issuing a section 148 notice had expired. The AO at Lucknow's issuance of a notice under section 142(1) and completion of assessment despite objections was held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed under sections 147 read with 144 was quashed. The tribunal allowed the ground challenging jurisdiction and invalidity of the reopening notice, emphasizing that jurisdictional competence is a fundamental requirement for valid assessment proceedings.
The ITAT held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid as the notice was issued by an AO lacking jurisdiction. The AO at Bareilly, who issued the notice, failed to properly ascertain jurisdiction despite access to the assessee's PAN details, rendering the notice non-est in law. The subsequent transfer of proceedings to the correct AO at Lucknow occurred after the limitation period for issuing a section 148 notice had expired. The AO at Lucknow's issuance of a notice under section 142(1) and completion of assessment despite objections was held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed under sections 147 read with 144 was quashed. The tribunal allowed the ground challenging jurisdiction and invalidity of the reopening notice, emphasizing that jurisdictional competence is a fundamental requirement for valid assessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.