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...
The HC held that the two-year limitation period under Section 263(2) must be computed from the date of the original assessment order under Section 143(3), not from the reassessment order date. Since the reassessment pertained solely to capital gains and did not affect deductions under Section 43B considered in the original order, the original assessment order was not merged with the reassessment. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was barred by limitation as it related to an issue covered by the original assessment. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the revision order as time barred was upheld.
The HC held that the two-year limitation period under Section 263(2) must be computed from the date of the original assessment order under Section 143(3), not from the reassessment order date. Since the reassessment pertained solely to capital gains and did not affect deductions under Section 43B considered in the original order, the original assessment order was not merged with the reassessment. Consequently, the revision order under Section 263 was barred by limitation as it related to an issue covered by the original assessment. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the revision order as time barred was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.