Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112...
HC held that the notice issued under s.148 was time-barred and jurisdictionally invalid because the six-year surviving period from the end of the relevant assessment year had expired before issuance; the respondent's contention that a ten-year period applied was rejected. The HC found only two days remained to complete the s.148A(d) process and issue a s.148 notice, which in any event expired before the notice dated 27 July 2022. Consequently the impugned s.148 notice and all subsequent communications including notices under s.142(1) and the related show-cause notice were quashed and set aside as beyond jurisdiction. Other contentions of the petitioner were left open.
HC held that the notice issued under s.148 was time-barred and jurisdictionally invalid because the six-year surviving period from the end of the relevant assessment year had expired before issuance; the respondent's contention that a ten-year period applied was rejected. The HC found only two days remained to complete the s.148A(d) process and issue a s.148 notice, which in any event expired before the notice dated 27 July 2022. Consequently the impugned s.148 notice and all subsequent communications including notices under s.142(1) and the related show-cause notice were quashed and set aside as beyond jurisdiction. Other contentions of the petitioner were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
