https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64059 The Tribunal held that the DCIT had jurisdiction to re-open the matter, as the JCIT lacked authority. The letter by JCIT was deemed invalid for not declaring the assessee in default. Grossing up provisions under section 195A were upheld for expatriate staff. Valuation of rent-free accommodation was to follow Rule 3. Orders for 1988-89 to 1994-95 were time-barred and quashed. Interest under section 201(1A) was mandatory, and the Assessing Officer was directed to correctly bifurcate tax and interest amounts. Appeals for the mentioned financial years were allowed, with others partly allowed. en-us Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:48:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64059 The Tribunal held that the DCIT had jurisdiction to re-open the matter, as the JCIT lacked authority. The letter by JCIT was deemed invalid for not declaring the assessee in default. Grossing up provisions under section 195A were upheld for expatriate staff. Valuation of rent-free accommodation was to follow Rule 3. Orders for 1988-89 to 1994-95 were time-barred and quashed. Interest under section 201(1A) was mandatory, and the Assessing Officer was directed to correctly bifurcate tax and interest amounts. Appeals for the mentioned financial years were allowed, with others partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64059