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...
Notices issued u/ss 84 and 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were valid. The time limitation for revising assessment orders is not an issue if a notice is issued in time. The High Court had previously dealt with a similar case involving Section 27. According to the proviso to Section 22(2), assessment years were deemed completed on 30.06.2012. Any revision proceedings had to be completed within six years for deemed assessments u/s 27. Mentioning the wrong provision or not mentioning it does not invalidate an order if the authority had requisite jurisdiction. The 23.07.2014 notices, though erroneously mentioning Section 84, were intended for revision u/s 27(1)(a). The assessments completed on 04.01.2021, 31.12.2020, and 07.01.2021 were within the limitation period prescribed u/s 27(1)(a). The writ petitions were dismissed.
Notices issued u/ss 84 and 27(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 were valid. The time limitation for revising assessment orders is not an issue if a notice is issued in time. The High Court had previously dealt with a similar case involving Section 27. According to the proviso to Section 22(2), assessment years were deemed completed on 30.06.2012. Any revision proceedings had to be completed within six years for deemed assessments u/s 27. Mentioning the wrong provision or not mentioning it does not invalidate an order if the authority had requisite jurisdiction. The 23.07.2014 notices, though erroneously mentioning Section 84, were intended for revision u/s 27(1)(a). The assessments completed on 04.01.2021, 31.12.2020, and 07.01.2021 were within the limitation period prescribed u/s 27(1)(a). The writ petitions were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
