https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293552 A jurisdictional challenge arose to notices and summonses issued under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The counter-affidavit recorded that, in view of the CBDT notification, the respondent was not the competent authority to initiate proceedings, rendering the impugned action void ab initio, and that notices had already been issued by the competent authority. The Madras HC therefore set aside the impugned notices and summonses, while preserving liberty to proceed on the basis of the notices issued by the competent authority. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:13:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293552 A jurisdictional challenge arose to notices and summonses issued under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The counter-affidavit recorded that, in view of the CBDT notification, the respondent was not the competent authority to initiate proceedings, rendering the impugned action void ab initio, and that notices had already been issued by the competent authority. The Madras HC therefore set aside the impugned notices and summonses, while preserving liberty to proceed on the basis of the notices issued by the competent authority. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293552