Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
ITAT held that a PCIT order under s.127 effected exclusive jurisdiction transfer to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai with effect from 09.12.2020; administrative delay in ITBA migration does not defer legal effect. Consequently, the ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli's notice issued u/s 143(2) on 29.06.2021 was without jurisdiction, invalid and liable to be quashed, rendering any resulting assessment order void ab initio. On merits, ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions: an addition for alleged undisclosed business income based solely on survey notings was unsupported by corroborative evidence, and an addition u/s 68 read with s.115BBE was incorrect as amounts were opening balances, not credits in the year.
ITAT held that a PCIT order under s.127 effected exclusive jurisdiction transfer to DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai with effect from 09.12.2020; administrative delay in ITBA migration does not defer legal effect. Consequently, the ITO, Ward-4, Tirunelveli's notice issued u/s 143(2) on 29.06.2021 was without jurisdiction, invalid and liable to be quashed, rendering any resulting assessment order void ab initio. On merits, ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions: an addition for alleged undisclosed business income based solely on survey notings was unsupported by corroborative evidence, and an addition u/s 68 read with s.115BBE was incorrect as amounts were opening balances, not credits in the year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
