Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
