Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
