Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
