Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4381 to 4400 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
