Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96301 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 4816 
Join Channel 
