Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
