Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Palmolein classification defeated the crude-oil concession; material misdeclaration sustained recovery and confiscation, while separate false-document...
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. Proceedings commenced on 02.03.2023 via show cause notice with final order passed on 06.12.2023. The Court determined that even with the extension of time limit, such an order could only have been passed until 31.12.2023. Since these facts were undisputed and clearly evident from the impugned order and records, the Court concluded that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred. The Court found no reason to call for a counter affidavit and allowed the petition, effectively invalidating the proceedings due to their time-barred nature.
The HC examined whether proceedings under Section 73 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 were time-barred. Proceedings commenced on 02.03.2023 via show cause notice with final order passed on 06.12.2023. The Court determined that even with the extension of time limit, such an order could only have been passed until 31.12.2023. Since these facts were undisputed and clearly evident from the impugned order and records, the Court concluded that the proceedings culminating in the impugned order were time-barred. The Court found no reason to call for a counter affidavit and allowed the petition, effectively invalidating the proceedings due to their time-barred nature.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
