Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment proceedings u/s 153C - The period of limitation and deemed date for possession of seized documents were discussed. It was held that the date of recording satisfaction would be the deemed date for possession of seized documents, which was 03-10-2022, and six years would be reckoned from this date. The submission made by the Authorized Representative was tenable, and the relevant assessment year for the previous year in which the search was conducted would be AY 2023-24, with six immediately preceding assessment years being AY 2018-19 to 2022-23. The assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been carried out by issuing notice u/s 153C and not Section 143(2). The case was covered by the Akanksha Gupta case, and the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Assessment proceedings u/s 153C - The period of limitation and deemed date for possession of seized documents were discussed. It was held that the date of recording satisfaction would be the deemed date for possession of seized documents, which was 03-10-2022, and six years would be reckoned from this date. The submission made by the Authorized Representative was tenable, and the relevant assessment year for the previous year in which the search was conducted would be AY 2023-24, with six immediately preceding assessment years being AY 2018-19 to 2022-23. The assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been carried out by issuing notice u/s 153C and not Section 143(2). The case was covered by the Akanksha Gupta case, and the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
