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" ?
The first proviso to the limitation provision in section 149(1) restricts retrospective application of the post-2021 ten-year reopening window; for assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021 a reopening notice under section 148 is valid only if the pre-2021 (six-year) limitation continued to apply. Applying the Supreme Court ratio in Rajeev Bansal, the court found the six-year period for AY 2013-14 had expired (extended relief aside) before the 2021 amendment took effect, so notices issued in 2024 were time-barred and were quashed.
The first proviso to the limitation provision in section 149(1) restricts retrospective application of the post-2021 ten-year reopening window; for assessment years beginning on or before 1 April 2021 a reopening notice under section 148 is valid only if the pre-2021 (six-year) limitation continued to apply. Applying the Supreme Court ratio in Rajeev Bansal, the court found the six-year period for AY 2013-14 had expired (extended relief aside) before the 2021 amendment took effect, so notices issued in 2024 were time-barred and were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
