Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Collateral challenge to the jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings was held maintainable in an appeal against penalty where the penalty was founded on that reassessment. After three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval for notice under section 148 had to be obtained from the authority specified in section 151(ii); approval by the PCIT was insufficient. Because the notice under section 148 and the reassessment order were issued with the wrong sanction, the reassessment was void and the consequential penalty under section 271E could not survive.
Collateral challenge to the jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings was held maintainable in an appeal against penalty where the penalty was founded on that reassessment. After three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval for notice under section 148 had to be obtained from the authority specified in section 151(ii); approval by the PCIT was insufficient. Because the notice under section 148 and the reassessment order were issued with the wrong sanction, the reassessment was void and the consequential penalty under section 271E could not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.