Observations in an earlier judgment on assessment against an amalgamated entity were only a clarification that the Revenue must act in accordance with law; they did not constitute a finding or direction under sections 150 and 153(6). Applying Rajinder Nath, the Court held that only a finding necessary for disposal of the case can trigger those provisions, and the Revenue could not use the prior judgment to extend jurisdiction. The proviso to section 143(2) continued to apply in the second round, so scrutiny notices issued beyond the prescribed limitation were jurisdiction and could not sustain assessment proceedings against the successor company. The impugned notices and proceedings were quashed.
Observations in an earlier judgment on assessment against an amalgamated entity were only a clarification that the Revenue must act in accordance with law; they did not constitute a finding or direction under sections 150 and 153(6). Applying Rajinder Nath, the Court held that only a finding necessary for disposal of the case can trigger those provisions, and the Revenue could not use the prior judgment to extend jurisdiction. The proviso to section 143(2) continued to apply in the second round, so scrutiny notices issued beyond the prescribed limitation were jurisdiction and could not sustain assessment proceedings against the successor company. The impugned notices and proceedings were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
