Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
HC held reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were invalid due to statutory limitation u/s 149. The original notice was set aside for lacking mandatory approvals from competent authority. Court rejected Revenue's argument that limitation period should be extended due to prior litigation, stating time spent in previous challenges cannot extend statutory limitation periods. The fact that Revenue failed to take proper legal steps within prescribed timeframe cannot be used to justify extension of limitation period. No court order prevented Revenue from issuing valid notice within limitation period. Petition allowed, reassessment order and notices quashed as time-barred. Litigation time exclusion claim denied as limitation u/s 149 remained absolute.
HC held reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were invalid due to statutory limitation u/s 149. The original notice was set aside for lacking mandatory approvals from competent authority. Court rejected Revenue's argument that limitation period should be extended due to prior litigation, stating time spent in previous challenges cannot extend statutory limitation periods. The fact that Revenue failed to take proper legal steps within prescribed timeframe cannot be used to justify extension of limitation period. No court order prevented Revenue from issuing valid notice within limitation period. Petition allowed, reassessment order and notices quashed as time-barred. Litigation time exclusion claim denied as limitation u/s 149 remained absolute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
