Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC upheld that the assessee's challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the AO was barred by Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act because no objection was raised within the statutory period or prior to completion of assessment; notice under s.143(2) served on the PAN address did not revive the objection. The court further held that subsequent administrative reallocation of wards lawfully vested jurisdiction in ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, rendering the jurisdictional plea untimely and without merit. Consequently, the ITAT's refusal to entertain the jurisdictional challenge was affirmed and the substantial question of law was answered against the assessee.
The HC upheld that the assessee's challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the AO was barred by Section 124(3)(a) of the IT Act because no objection was raised within the statutory period or prior to completion of assessment; notice under s.143(2) served on the PAN address did not revive the objection. The court further held that subsequent administrative reallocation of wards lawfully vested jurisdiction in ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur, rendering the jurisdictional plea untimely and without merit. Consequently, the ITAT's refusal to entertain the jurisdictional challenge was affirmed and the substantial question of law was answered against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.