Reassessment disclosure requirements permit stated reasons without revealing information sources, but prior-taxation claims require full examination b...
Independent assessment discretion and corroborated electronic evidence determine validity of on-money additions and undisclosed-consideration assessme...
Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Interplay between limitation under section 144C(13) and section 153 was examined, with the tribunal considering the Madras High Court view that the two provisions are inter dependent and overlapping for matters under section 92CA; the tribunal concluded the timeline for passing final assessment orders must be determined with reference to section 144C read with section 153 and found the final assessment orders in five assessment years were passed beyond that limitation period. Outcome: the impugned final assessment orders were quashed as time barred.
Interplay between limitation under section 144C(13) and section 153 was examined, with the tribunal considering the Madras High Court view that the two provisions are inter dependent and overlapping for matters under section 92CA; the tribunal concluded the timeline for passing final assessment orders must be determined with reference to section 144C read with section 153 and found the final assessment orders in five assessment years were passed beyond that limitation period. Outcome: the impugned final assessment orders were quashed as time barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.