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 allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed under sections 201(1)/201(1A) as void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (TDS) of a different jurisdiction had assumed jurisdiction and issued a default TDS notice for alleged non-deduction on external development charge payments to a local urban development authority, whereas the assessee fell within the territorial jurisdiction of another Assessing Officer. In light of the uncontroverted jurisdictional defect, the impugned order could not be sustained; the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed and the order was set aside.
ITAT allowed the appeal and quashed the order passed under sections 201(1)/201(1A) as void ab initio for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (TDS) of a different jurisdiction had assumed jurisdiction and issued a default TDS notice for alleged non-deduction on external development charge payments to a local urban development authority, whereas the assessee fell within the territorial jurisdiction of another Assessing Officer. In light of the uncontroverted jurisdictional defect, the impugned order could not be sustained; the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed and the order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.