Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A scrutiny assessment was held invalid because the section 143(2) notice was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The return disclosed a loss above the limit assigned to the Income Tax Officer for metro charges, so jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Commissioner and not the ITO who issued the notice. The Tribunal treated the section 143(2) notice requirement as mandatory, not a curable procedural defect, and quashed the resulting assessment.
A scrutiny assessment was held invalid because the section 143(2) notice was issued by an officer lacking pecuniary jurisdiction under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011. The return disclosed a loss above the limit assigned to the Income Tax Officer for metro charges, so jurisdiction vested in the Deputy Commissioner and not the ITO who issued the notice. The Tribunal treated the section 143(2) notice requirement as mandatory, not a curable procedural defect, and quashed the resulting assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
