{"id":54710,"date":"2025-06-02T16:37:09","date_gmt":"2025-06-02T11:07:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/deluxe-enterprises-v-ito-2025-342-ctr-618-246-dtr-25-303-taxman-366-hphc\/"},"modified":"2025-06-02T16:37:09","modified_gmt":"2025-06-02T11:07:09","slug":"deluxe-enterprises-v-ito-2025-342-ctr-618-246-dtr-25-303-taxman-366-hphc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/deluxe-enterprises-v-ito-2025-342-ctr-618-246-dtr-25-303-taxman-366-hphc\/","title":{"rendered":"Deluxe Enterprises v. ITO (2025) 342 CTR 618 \/ 246 DTR 25 \/ 303 Taxman 366 (HP)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Assessee had been filing his IT returns with respondent No. 4 (AO, Delhi) ever since the date of inception. Assessment was finalized by respondent No. 4 even for the asst. yr. 2003-04. The assessment was completed by AO\u00a0 Solan. On appeal the ITAT dismissed the appeal. On writ the Court held that\u00a0 jurisdiction\u00a0 originally with respondent No. 4 could not have been unilaterally transferred to respondent No. 5 (AO, Solan) without complying with the provisions of S.\u00a0 127. Respondents cannot dispute that the AO in this case has been changed and the records too stand transferred to him which could have only been done after complying with provisions of s. 127 and an order passed in absence of any reasons for transfer has essentially to be construed to be the one as having been passed without application of mind. Accordingly the\u00a0\u00a0 order framing the best judgment assessment\u00a0 is quashed and set aside.\u00a0 (AY.2009-10)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 143(3): Assessment-Jurisdiction of AO-Best judgement-Order passed without complying the provision of section 127 is quashed and set aside. [S. 120, 127, 144,260A,  Art. 226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-eeq","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54710","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54710"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54710\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":54711,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54710\/revisions\/54711"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}