Concessional corporate tax option under section 115BAA survives procedural documentary lapses when statutory compliance and earlier exercise are estab...
Penny-stock additions require transaction-specific evidence; general investigation material alone cannot establish undisclosed income or accommodation...
Transfer pricing comparability prioritises reliable external CUPs and foreign-currency LIBOR benchmarks for exports, borrowings and delayed receivable...
Section 153C satisfaction and seized electronic records sustained unexplained-investment addition, subject to proportionate ownership-share verificati...
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.