Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
Natural justice and pre-CIRP labour awards protect termination compensation, permitting withdrawal of court deposits despite later insolvency resoluti...
Arbitration of SEZ sub-lease monetary claims preserves rent, maintenance, termination, improvements and damages disputes while unused premises are vac...
Scientific research approval grants a research association tax recognition, subject to annual donor reporting, certification, and regulatory complianc...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
