Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10041 to 10060 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the final assessment order dated 31.08.2016 is barred by limitation. The court ruled that where an objection is filed, the AO must determine both receipt date of the draft assessment order and whether the objection was filed within the 30-day period prescribed by s.144C(2); only an objection filed within that period restrains the AO from completing assessment. The AO could not lawfully rely on the assessee's asserted service date without verifying actual delivery (e.g., postal tracking) and, having failed to exercise due diligence, wrongly computed the 30-day period from 14.03.2016. Because the objection was belated, the Tribunal rightly found the assessment time-barred.
HC held that the final assessment order dated 31.08.2016 is barred by limitation. The court ruled that where an objection is filed, the AO must determine both receipt date of the draft assessment order and whether the objection was filed within the 30-day period prescribed by s.144C(2); only an objection filed within that period restrains the AO from completing assessment. The AO could not lawfully rely on the assessee's asserted service date without verifying actual delivery (e.g., postal tracking) and, having failed to exercise due diligence, wrongly computed the 30-day period from 14.03.2016. Because the objection was belated, the Tribunal rightly found the assessment time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
