Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
HC quashed reassessment notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14 as time-barred under s.149(1) of IT Act. Court held that 29-day extension under TOLA required completion of both s.148A(d) order and s.148 notice by 12.07.2022. Despite procedural timeline of one month under s.148A(d), AO was bound by overarching limitation period. Court applied SC decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal to calculate available time, excluding periods between 01.06.2021-04.05.2022 and 04.05.2022-30.05.2022. Since notice was issued on 30.07.2022, beyond calculated deadline, proceedings were invalid. HC rejected Revenue's argument that s.148A(d) timeline operated independently of s.149 limitation.
HC quashed reassessment notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14 as time-barred under s.149(1) of IT Act. Court held that 29-day extension under TOLA required completion of both s.148A(d) order and s.148 notice by 12.07.2022. Despite procedural timeline of one month under s.148A(d), AO was bound by overarching limitation period. Court applied SC decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal to calculate available time, excluding periods between 01.06.2021-04.05.2022 and 04.05.2022-30.05.2022. Since notice was issued on 30.07.2022, beyond calculated deadline, proceedings were invalid. HC rejected Revenue's argument that s.148A(d) timeline operated independently of s.149 limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.