Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
