Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017-18 on 1st May 2024 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, since the six-year period expired on 31st March 2024. The court rejected the argument that the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) could extend this limitation period once the first proviso's restriction is breached. Furthermore, the impugned notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was declared invalid and bad in law for non-compliance with Section 151A. The decision aligns with precedents from the Bombay HC and has been followed by other High Courts, reinforcing that notices under Section 148 must be issued by FAO to be valid. Consequently, the notice in question was quashed.
The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017-18 on 1st May 2024 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, since the six-year period expired on 31st March 2024. The court rejected the argument that the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) could extend this limitation period once the first proviso's restriction is breached. Furthermore, the impugned notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was declared invalid and bad in law for non-compliance with Section 151A. The decision aligns with precedents from the Bombay HC and has been followed by other High Courts, reinforcing that notices under Section 148 must be issued by FAO to be valid. Consequently, the notice in question was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4918 
