Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
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 
