https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405583 The court held that initiating proceedings under Sections 201(1) and 201(1a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without determining the jurisdictional issue of tax chargeability could warrant interference. Despite acknowledging the delay caused by AAR's response regarding remittances to a non-resident company, the court disposed of the writ petitions with specific directions. These directions included adjudicating the show cause notices, determining tax chargeability jurisdiction, providing a personal hearing, issuing a speaking order, and allowing challenges through legal means. The authority was also permitted to await AAR's decision on the matter involving the non-resident company. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jul 2021 15:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405583 The court held that initiating proceedings under Sections 201(1) and 201(1a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without determining the jurisdictional issue of tax chargeability could warrant interference. Despite acknowledging the delay caused by AAR's response regarding remittances to a non-resident company, the court disposed of the writ petitions with specific directions. These directions included adjudicating the show cause notices, determining tax chargeability jurisdiction, providing a personal hearing, issuing a speaking order, and allowing challenges through legal means. The authority was also permitted to await AAR's decision on the matter involving the non-resident company. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405583