PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the order under section 127(2) effecting centralization of the petitioner-company's PAN to the Central Charge, Bengaluru. The court held the respondent failed to demonstrate necessity or satisfy statutory criteria for transfer: the impugned order relied only on searches of a director and related persons, contained no material linking the petitioner-company to the searched transactions, and did not address the petitioner's objections. The departmental circular was inapplicable because no notices under sections 143(2), 142(1) or 153C were issued by the jurisdictional AO. Assessment records likewise showed no incriminating transactions with the petitioner; jurisdiction therefore remains with Ahmedabad.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the order under section 127(2) effecting centralization of the petitioner-company's PAN to the Central Charge, Bengaluru. The court held the respondent failed to demonstrate necessity or satisfy statutory criteria for transfer: the impugned order relied only on searches of a director and related persons, contained no material linking the petitioner-company to the searched transactions, and did not address the petitioner's objections. The departmental circular was inapplicable because no notices under sections 143(2), 142(1) or 153C were issued by the jurisdictional AO. Assessment records likewise showed no incriminating transactions with the petitioner; jurisdiction therefore remains with Ahmedabad.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.