Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation and quashed it. As per Section 144C(13) read with Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer is required to give effect to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received. In the instant case, the DRP's directions were received by the Assessing Officer on 03/10/2018, and the last date for passing the assessment order was 30/11/2018. However, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 06/12/2018, which was beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Envestnet Asset Management (India) (P.) Ltd. and Dentsply India (P.) Ltd., where similar assessment orders passed after the expiry of the time limit were set aside. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years, being barred by limitation.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation and quashed it. As per Section 144C(13) read with Section 143(3), the Assessing Officer is required to give effect to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) within one month from the end of the month in which such directions are received. In the instant case, the DRP's directions were received by the Assessing Officer on 03/10/2018, and the last date for passing the assessment order was 30/11/2018. However, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 06/12/2018, which was beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Envestnet Asset Management (India) (P.) Ltd. and Dentsply India (P.) Ltd., where similar assessment orders passed after the expiry of the time limit were set aside. Accordingly, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders for the relevant assessment years, being barred by limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.