Customs valuation and classification require comparable evidence and assessment of imported goods in their actual condition, invalidating related pena...
Terminal gate verification for transshipment containers shifts to operators, while Customs controls and discrepancy reporting requirements remain mand...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT determined the assessment order under s.153C r/w s.143(3) for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation. The order dated 21.04.2021 exceeded the statutory deadline of 31.12.2020 by 111 days. Following the legal maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusion alteris', when statute prescribes a specific timeframe, compliance is mandatory and no alternative method is permissible. The assessment should have been completed within prescribed 9 months or 21 months period, whichever is later, per s.153B. Since AO failed to pass the order within statutory limitation period, the assessment was quashed and appellant's appeal was allowed on grounds of time-barred proceedings.
ITAT determined the assessment order under s.153C r/w s.143(3) for AY 2016-17 was barred by limitation. The order dated 21.04.2021 exceeded the statutory deadline of 31.12.2020 by 111 days. Following the legal maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusion alteris', when statute prescribes a specific timeframe, compliance is mandatory and no alternative method is permissible. The assessment should have been completed within prescribed 9 months or 21 months period, whichever is later, per s.153B. Since AO failed to pass the order within statutory limitation period, the assessment was quashed and appellant's appeal was allowed on grounds of time-barred proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.