Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that the Addl./JCIT(A) erred in computing a delay of 4209 days from 28.01.2012, as there was no evidence that the intimation u/s 143(1) or any demand/recovery notice was ever served on Assessee X. ITAT observed that processing on 28.01.2012 could not have been pursuant to CBDT Circular No.13/2016 and, in absence of proof of service, concluded that limitation could not run from that date. Consequently, dismissal of the appeal on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable. On the substantive issue of status change from "any other AOP" to "LLP" without opportunity, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional AO to re-examine the correct status after hearing Assessee X. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT held that the Addl./JCIT(A) erred in computing a delay of 4209 days from 28.01.2012, as there was no evidence that the intimation u/s 143(1) or any demand/recovery notice was ever served on Assessee X. ITAT observed that processing on 28.01.2012 could not have been pursuant to CBDT Circular No.13/2016 and, in absence of proof of service, concluded that limitation could not run from that date. Consequently, dismissal of the appeal on limitation without examining merits was held unsustainable. On the substantive issue of status change from "any other AOP" to "LLP" without opportunity, the matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional AO to re-examine the correct status after hearing Assessee X. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
