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...
Reassessment notices issued u/s 148 for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 were time-barred by limitation. Withdrawal of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was invalid as there were no valid pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The second proviso to section 143(3), allowing the Assessing Officer to make a reference, was applicable only from assessment year 2022-23 onwards. The PCIT lacked jurisdiction, as the Commissioner (Exemption) with territorial jurisdiction should have approved or withdrawn the approval. The Appellate Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, quashing the PCIT's orders withdrawing approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) due to lack of jurisdiction and invalid reassessment proceedings.
Reassessment notices issued u/s 148 for assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 were time-barred by limitation. Withdrawal of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was invalid as there were no valid pending proceedings before the Assessing Officer. The second proviso to section 143(3), allowing the Assessing Officer to make a reference, was applicable only from assessment year 2022-23 onwards. The PCIT lacked jurisdiction, as the Commissioner (Exemption) with territorial jurisdiction should have approved or withdrawn the approval. The Appellate Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, quashing the PCIT's orders withdrawing approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) due to lack of jurisdiction and invalid reassessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
