Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued on April 4, 2022, was beyond the prescribed period of limitation, rendering the consequent actions illegal. Mere issuance of a notice u/s 148A for conducting an inquiry before issuing a notice u/s 148 cannot be read within the ambit of the first proviso to Section 149(1). Additionally, the notice issued on August 27, 2022, by the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) fell outside the faceless assessment scheme u/s 151A, as it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as required under the scheme. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The High Court held that the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act issued on April 4, 2022, was beyond the prescribed period of limitation, rendering the consequent actions illegal. Mere issuance of a notice u/s 148A for conducting an inquiry before issuing a notice u/s 148 cannot be read within the ambit of the first proviso to Section 149(1). Additionally, the notice issued on August 27, 2022, by the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) fell outside the faceless assessment scheme u/s 151A, as it was not issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as required under the scheme. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
