Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of final assessment orders passed beyond the limit set by section 144C(13). It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) must issue the final assessment order within one month of receiving directions from the DRP. In the case of AY 2017-18, the AO passed the final assessment order on 02.01.2023, which was after the prescribed time limit, making it barred by limitation. Similarly, for AY 2018-19, the AO's order on 30.12.2022 was also beyond the limit. Consequently, both orders were quashed as they violated section 144C(13), and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of final assessment orders passed beyond the limit set by section 144C(13). It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) must issue the final assessment order within one month of receiving directions from the DRP. In the case of AY 2017-18, the AO passed the final assessment order on 02.01.2023, which was after the prescribed time limit, making it barred by limitation. Similarly, for AY 2018-19, the AO's order on 30.12.2022 was also beyond the limit. Consequently, both orders were quashed as they violated section 144C(13), and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
