Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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.