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...
CBDT Instruction No. 1 of 2011 issued under section 119 was held to govern pecuniary jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 143(2). As the assessee's declared income fell below the limit placing jurisdiction with the Income Tax Officer in a metro city, the ACIT lacked competent pecuniary jurisdiction to assume assessment jurisdiction under section 143(3). The defect was treated as a foundational jurisdictional error, not a mere issue of concurrent jurisdiction. The Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on a different High Court ruling concerning search-related and territorial jurisdiction. The assessment was therefore vitiated and quashed, and the assessee's additional ground was allowed.
CBDT Instruction No. 1 of 2011 issued under section 119 was held to govern pecuniary jurisdiction for issuance of notice under section 143(2). As the assessee's declared income fell below the limit placing jurisdiction with the Income Tax Officer in a metro city, the ACIT lacked competent pecuniary jurisdiction to assume assessment jurisdiction under section 143(3). The defect was treated as a foundational jurisdictional error, not a mere issue of concurrent jurisdiction. The Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on a different High Court ruling concerning search-related and territorial jurisdiction. The assessment was therefore vitiated and quashed, and the assessee's additional ground was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
