Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Income Tax - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights September 2024 Year 2024 This

The jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) had suo moto ...


Tax Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee: Arbitrary Transfer Between Tax Offices Violates Jurisdictional Protocol.

September 25, 2024

Case Laws     Income Tax     AT

The jurisdictional Assessing Officer (AO) had suo moto transferred the assessment to Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2) Noida. The appellant contended that the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-40(1), Delhi and another such notice was issued by ITO, Ward-2(2), Noida despite the assessment proceedings for the relevant Assessment Year being pending with ITO, Ward-70(2), Delhi. The Tribunal held that even though the assessee had mentioned the Noida address in the Income Tax Return and requested the transfer to Delhi, the assessment is not vitiated. However, the Revenue failed to justify and establish the validity of issuance of the notice u/s 143(1) by ITO, Ward 40(1) on 20.09.2016. The Tribunal found no justification for how the Noida Office transferred the case to Ward 40(1), Delhi, which ultimately reached Ward 8(2), Delhi, from where the final assessment order was passed. The Tribunal held that it is not a case of concurrent jurisdiction, but rather a whimsical exercise of jurisdiction by the AOs in transferring the assessment. The assessee's objections to the assumption of jurisdiction were rightly raised and considered by the assessing officers. The Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. Transfer of unutilized Input tax credit to new registration - unable to submit Form GST ITC- 02A online - The impugned action whereby, the respondents have failed to...

  2. CENVAT Credit - input service - non-payment of service tax on Ocean Freight - non-payment of service tax on Government Fees under RCM - The Appellate Tribunal considered...

  3. Cenvat credit on input services - invoices issued in favour of the Head Office - denial under Rule 9(1)(g) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on ground that Head Office of the...

  4. Adjustment of excess service tax paid with subsequent service tax liability - case of Revenue is that Rule 6 (3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not provide for such...

  5. CESTAT ruled in favor of appellant regarding service tax liability on GTA services during 2008-2013. The Tribunal determined service tax liability shifted to service...

  6. Transfer of Residence Rules - Import of Cars - appellant had violated the provisions of Transfer of Residence Rules by returning to Dubai before completing the required...

  7. The Appellate Tribunal considered a case involving penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee did not disclose non-eligibility...

  8. Bogus sundry creditors - Whether CIT(A) had clearly violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, while admitting additional evidence? - The High...

  9. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee on several transfer pricing issues. Firstly, it deleted the TP adjustment on royalty and service fee payments, following its...

  10. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Transfer pricing adjustment - assessee advanced interest free loan to its AE - The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed all...

  11. Capital gain in respect of sale of only one property - addition u/s 50C - assessee itself had leasehold rights in the said property and hence in instant facts, the...

  12. The assessee, a trust, claimed to be taxed at the same rate applicable to its beneficiary u/s 115BAA. However, this claim was dismissed as the assessee was not treated...

  13. Transfer of capital goods to sister unit (transfer of business) - Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - The conditionalities of Rule 10 given in sub-rule (3)...

  14. The assessee, after being amalgamated with another company, treated the excess consideration paid over the net assets acquired as goodwill and claimed depreciation at...

  15. The case involved a dispute over the tax rate applicable on Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from the sale of unlisted shares u/s 112(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellate...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates