Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
