Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC held that the assessment orders dated 30.08.2022 and 01.09.2022 were issued beyond the permissible limitation period. As per Section 144C(13), the AO must complete proceedings within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions u/s 144C(5) are received. The HC ruled that when the DRP uploaded its directions on the portal on 30.06.2022, it amounted to 'despatch' u/s 13(2) of the IT Act, and the AO's 'receipt' occurred on the same date when the electronic record entered the department's computer resource. Thus, the limitation period began from 30.06.2022, not 05.07.2022 when the email was received, rendering the impugned orders time-barred.
The HC held that the assessment orders dated 30.08.2022 and 01.09.2022 were issued beyond the permissible limitation period. As per Section 144C(13), the AO must complete proceedings within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP directions u/s 144C(5) are received. The HC ruled that when the DRP uploaded its directions on the portal on 30.06.2022, it amounted to 'despatch' u/s 13(2) of the IT Act, and the AO's 'receipt' occurred on the same date when the electronic record entered the department's computer resource. Thus, the limitation period began from 30.06.2022, not 05.07.2022 when the email was received, rendering the impugned orders time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
