Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of assessment u/s 153C and notices issued u/s 153B of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the starting point of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153B is the date when the seized books of account, documents, or assets were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person. The previous notices issued to the four transferor companies were void and irrelevant. The limitation period commenced from the date when the incriminating material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, even if time was consumed in centralizing the material. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and notices issued by the Department.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of assessment u/s 153C and notices issued u/s 153B of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the starting point of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153B is the date when the seized books of account, documents, or assets were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person. The previous notices issued to the four transferor companies were void and irrelevant. The limitation period commenced from the date when the incriminating material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, even if time was consumed in centralizing the material. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and notices issued by the Department.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
