Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was beyond the time limitation prescribed u/s 149(1). The Revenue's contention that the non-obstante clause u/s 150 permitted issuance of the notice, premised on the assumption that the High Court's previous order dismissing the Revenue's appeal contained findings and directions for commencing proceedings u/s 147, was rejected. The Court clarified that its previous order could not be construed as permitting reopening of assessments beyond the period stipulated u/s 149(1) or where necessary conditions for invoking Sections 147 and 148 were not satisfied. Consequently, the time limitation u/s 149(1) was applicable, rendering the impugned notice invalid.
The High Court held that the impugned notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was beyond the time limitation prescribed u/s 149(1). The Revenue's contention that the non-obstante clause u/s 150 permitted issuance of the notice, premised on the assumption that the High Court's previous order dismissing the Revenue's appeal contained findings and directions for commencing proceedings u/s 147, was rejected. The Court clarified that its previous order could not be construed as permitting reopening of assessments beyond the period stipulated u/s 149(1) or where necessary conditions for invoking Sections 147 and 148 were not satisfied. Consequently, the time limitation u/s 149(1) was applicable, rendering the impugned notice invalid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
