Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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.