Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Administrative fraud classification suspension does not halt independent criminal investigation or warrant-based searches into alleged economic offenc...
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 
