Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
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.