Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
