Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Reassessment proceedings were held to be within limitation because the first corrigendum to the section 148A(b) notice validly extended the time to respond, and that extended period had to be excluded under the third proviso to section 149(1). On that basis, the section 148A(d) order and section 148 notice were timely, and approval by the PCIT/CIT was competent rather than approval by the PCCIT/CCIT. The objection that only the Faceless Assessing Officer could issue the notice was rejected, as both the jurisdictional and faceless officers were treated as competent. The writ challenge on disputed factual issues, including claimed tax exemption and NRE account status, was not entertained, leaving those matters for the Assessing Officer.
Reassessment proceedings were held to be within limitation because the first corrigendum to the section 148A(b) notice validly extended the time to respond, and that extended period had to be excluded under the third proviso to section 149(1). On that basis, the section 148A(d) order and section 148 notice were timely, and approval by the PCIT/CIT was competent rather than approval by the PCCIT/CCIT. The objection that only the Faceless Assessing Officer could issue the notice was rejected, as both the jurisdictional and faceless officers were treated as competent. The writ challenge on disputed factual issues, including claimed tax exemption and NRE account status, was not entertained, leaving those matters for the Assessing Officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
