Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95752 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 reassessment notice issued beyond the period of limitation was invalid and without jurisdiction. The impugned notice itself was illegal, and there was no foundation for an assessment order based on a time-barred notice u/s 148. The assessment order passed u/s 148A(d) was also barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149. The inherent illegality of the time-barred notice u/s 148 percolated into the assessment order, rendering it an incurable defect. The Assessing Officer proceeded without jurisdiction, possibly applying the amended provisions of Section 149 erroneously. An order that is void ab initio cannot be saved, and acquiescence to an illegal order cannot render it legal. The Court allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that giving effect to an illegal and void order cannot be permitted.
The High Court held that the reassessment notice issued beyond the period of limitation was invalid and without jurisdiction. The impugned notice itself was illegal, and there was no foundation for an assessment order based on a time-barred notice u/s 148. The assessment order passed u/s 148A(d) was also barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149. The inherent illegality of the time-barred notice u/s 148 percolated into the assessment order, rendering it an incurable defect. The Assessing Officer proceeded without jurisdiction, possibly applying the amended provisions of Section 149 erroneously. An order that is void ab initio cannot be saved, and acquiescence to an illegal order cannot render it legal. The Court allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that giving effect to an illegal and void order cannot be permitted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.