Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
