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 HC held that the second notice issued u/s 148A(b) was a standalone notice, not a continuation of the first notice. The information on which the notices were based was completely different. As the second standalone notice was issued beyond the 3-year period stipulated u/s 149(1)(a) for reopening assessment where escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, it was barred by limitation. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148A(b), deciding in favor of the assessee.
The HC held that the second notice issued u/s 148A(b) was a standalone notice, not a continuation of the first notice. The information on which the notices were based was completely different. As the second standalone notice was issued beyond the 3-year period stipulated u/s 149(1)(a) for reopening assessment where escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, it was barred by limitation. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148A(b), deciding in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
