Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
Misclassification between copra and dry coconut: customs recovery and re-valuation quashed for lack of prior licensing-authority invalidation, appeals...
Interplay between limitation for final assessment under section...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to revive appeal
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Interplay between limitation for final assessment under section 144C(13) and section 153 was considered, and the tribunal applied binding precedent to treat limitation as governed by section 153 read with section 144C; consequence: the final assessment order for the stated year was held timebarred and quashed. The tribunal followed prior High Court and ITAT decisions endorsing mutual inclusion of the two provisions and cited a pending Supreme Court reference; consequence: parties are granted liberty to revive the appeal for merits if the higher court's ultimate ruling requires modification of this order.
Interplay between limitation for final assessment under section 144C(13) and section 153 was considered, and the tribunal applied binding precedent to treat limitation as governed by section 153 read with section 144C; consequence: the final assessment order for the stated year was held timebarred and quashed. The tribunal followed prior High Court and ITAT decisions endorsing mutual inclusion of the two provisions and cited a pending Supreme Court reference; consequence: parties are granted liberty to revive the appeal for merits if the higher court's ultimate ruling requires modification of this order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.