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 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 4828 
Join Channel 
