BCD exemption for specified display assembly inputs extended for automotive, medical and industrial applications, with defined exclusions and sunset d...
Prospective valuation amendment limits reassessment: unamended fair market value reference could not justify reopening based on a registered valuer's ...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1861 to 1880 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A reassessment notice issued under section 148 beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year required prior approval from the PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from the PCIT was insufficient because the controlling date for identifying the competent sanctioning authority is the date of issue of the section 148 notice. Sanction obtained at the section 148A stage could not replace the separate approval required for issuance of the reopening notice. The Tribunal therefore treated the notice as invalid and quashed the consequential reassessment.
A reassessment notice issued under section 148 beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year required prior approval from the PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from the PCIT was insufficient because the controlling date for identifying the competent sanctioning authority is the date of issue of the section 148 notice. Sanction obtained at the section 148A stage could not replace the separate approval required for issuance of the reopening notice. The Tribunal therefore treated the notice as invalid and quashed the consequential reassessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.