Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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 High Court held that the delay in issuing the tax refund was subject to the strict limitation period prescribed u/s 254 read with Section 153(3). The Assessing Officer failed to adhere to the Tribunal's directions and pass a fresh assessment order within the stipulated six-month period. The statutory limitation period u/s 153(3) expired on 30.09.2021. The Legislature's intent behind Section 153(3) was strict adherence to the time limit for passing a fresh assessment order after remand. The notices for initiating fresh assessment issued beyond the prescribed period were unsustainable and had to be set aside. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shelly Products, since the Department failed to comply with the Tribunal's order within the stipulated time, the income as returned by the assessee would stand accepted, and the excess tax paid for the relevant assessment year would have to be refunded.
The High Court held that the delay in issuing the tax refund was subject to the strict limitation period prescribed u/s 254 read with Section 153(3). The Assessing Officer failed to adhere to the Tribunal's directions and pass a fresh assessment order within the stipulated six-month period. The statutory limitation period u/s 153(3) expired on 30.09.2021. The Legislature's intent behind Section 153(3) was strict adherence to the time limit for passing a fresh assessment order after remand. The notices for initiating fresh assessment issued beyond the prescribed period were unsustainable and had to be set aside. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shelly Products, since the Department failed to comply with the Tribunal's order within the stipulated time, the income as returned by the assessee would stand accepted, and the excess tax paid for the relevant assessment year would have to be refunded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
