https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84722 The HC dismissed the petition challenging the order transferring the petitioner's case from the jurisdictional officer in Mumbai to the counterpart in New Delhi u/s 127(2). The HC held the impugned order reasoned that centralised and coordinated investigation was required to protect revenue interests, considering the petitioner's alleged bogus transactions with entities of the 'Pacific Group'. The HC found the reasons relevant and rejected the grounds of lack of reasons and absence of agreement between the two Commissioners. The HC concluded no infirmity warranted interference under extraordinary jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2025 07:46:06 +0530 Thu, 09 Jan 2025 07:46:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84722 The HC dismissed the petition challenging the order transferring the petitioner's case from the jurisdictional officer in Mumbai to the counterpart in New Delhi u/s 127(2). The HC held the impugned order reasoned that centralised and coordinated investigation was required to protect revenue interests, considering the petitioner's alleged bogus transactions with entities of the 'Pacific Group'. The HC found the reasons relevant and rejected the grounds of lack of reasons and absence of agreement between the two Commissioners. The HC concluded no infirmity warranted interference under extraordinary jurisdiction. Highlights Income Tax Thu, 09 Jan 2025 07:46:06 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84722