Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3001 to 3020 of 95957 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
