Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
