Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
The dispute concerns validity of an assessment order issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction due to multiple transfers of PAN jurisdiction; absence of any transfer order under the relevant statutory power prior to assessment meant jurisdiction remained with the original ITO. The tribunal applied the principle that an order by a non jurisdictional Assessing Officer is void ab initio and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the assessee's participation; accordingly the assessment was held void and the appellate order upholding it could not stand, appeal allowed.
The dispute concerns validity of an assessment order issued by an Assessing Officer who lacked jurisdiction due to multiple transfers of PAN jurisdiction; absence of any transfer order under the relevant statutory power prior to assessment meant jurisdiction remained with the original ITO. The tribunal applied the principle that an order by a non jurisdictional Assessing Officer is void ab initio and that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the assessee's participation; accordingly the assessment was held void and the appellate order upholding it could not stand, appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
