Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Sections 144C and 153 require harmonious construction when determining limitation for a final assessment made pursuant to DRP directions. The non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) does not displace the outer time limit under section 153; the final assessment must therefore be completed within that prescribed limitation period. Applying the binding High Court precedent, the ITAT treated the final assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 as time-barred and quashed it. Merits grounds remained open, with liberty to seek revival if a Supreme Court decision requires modification.
Sections 144C and 153 require harmonious construction when determining limitation for a final assessment made pursuant to DRP directions. The non-obstante clause in section 144C(13) does not displace the outer time limit under section 153; the final assessment must therefore be completed within that prescribed limitation period. Applying the binding High Court precedent, the ITAT treated the final assessment for Assessment Year 2018-19 as time-barred and quashed it. Merits grounds remained open, with liberty to seek revival if a Supreme Court decision requires modification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.