International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Classification of exported insecticides under export tariff affirmed; reclassification and related penalties set aside and MEIS scrip jurisdiction rec...
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.