Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Reassessment action initiated based on Section 148 notice and subsequent Section 148A(b) notice violated the First Proviso to Section 149(1) and was barred by the limitation period. The reassessment action commenced post April 1, 2021, was subject to the amended provisions. The Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal held that notices issued under unamended provisions should be treated as notices u/s 148A(b), subject to compliance with procedural requirements and defenses available under amended provisions, including Section 149. However, the terminal date of March 31, 2022, for commencing reassessment had passed when the Section 148A(b) notice was issued on May 27, 2022, contravening the First Proviso to Section 149(1). Ashish Agarwal cannot be construed as depriving the assessee of objections based on Section 149(1) or reinventing proceedings unchallenged earlier. The May 27, 2022 notice cannot be viewed as a continuation or substitution of the original Section 148 notice, as no legal challenge was instituted against the original notice, and no court order interdicted the reassessment action. The assessing officer failed to take corrective action despite being apprised of the amended procedure. Consequently, the impugned notice u/s.
Reassessment action initiated based on Section 148 notice and subsequent Section 148A(b) notice violated the First Proviso to Section 149(1) and was barred by the limitation period. The reassessment action commenced post April 1, 2021, was subject to the amended provisions. The Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal held that notices issued under unamended provisions should be treated as notices u/s 148A(b), subject to compliance with procedural requirements and defenses available under amended provisions, including Section 149. However, the terminal date of March 31, 2022, for commencing reassessment had passed when the Section 148A(b) notice was issued on May 27, 2022, contravening the First Proviso to Section 149(1). Ashish Agarwal cannot be construed as depriving the assessee of objections based on Section 149(1) or reinventing proceedings unchallenged earlier. The May 27, 2022 notice cannot be viewed as a continuation or substitution of the original Section 148 notice, as no legal challenge was instituted against the original notice, and no court order interdicted the reassessment action. The assessing officer failed to take corrective action despite being apprised of the amended procedure. Consequently, the impugned notice u/s.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
