Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.