Prior Sanction Requirement: absence of prescribed approval invalidates reassessment notice; limitation also bars notice if escaped income below thresh...
Eligibility for exemption depends on strict construction of the product description; reapers without binder are ineligible, but confiscation and penal...
Customs jurisdiction defined for Principal Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam, covering specified ports, districts and India's adjacent EEZ; effective on pu...
A reassessment notice issued beyond three years from the end of assessment year 2018-19 required prior sanction from the PCCIT/CCIT under section 151(ii), not the PCIT. The Tribunal held that obtaining sanction from an authority not prescribed by law rendered the section 148 notice void, and section 149 could not dilute or override the sanction requirement in section 151. It further held that the Finance Act, 2023 proviso to section 151 had no retrospective application. Because the reassessment initiation was jurisdictionally invalid, the revisionary order under section 263 founded on those proceedings was also unsustainable and was set aside.
A reassessment notice issued beyond three years from the end of assessment year 2018-19 required prior sanction from the PCCIT/CCIT under section 151(ii), not the PCIT. The Tribunal held that obtaining sanction from an authority not prescribed by law rendered the section 148 notice void, and section 149 could not dilute or override the sanction requirement in section 151. It further held that the Finance Act, 2023 proviso to section 151 had no retrospective application. Because the reassessment initiation was jurisdictionally invalid, the revisionary order under section 263 founded on those proceedings was also unsustainable and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.