Promissory note presumption of consideration survives blank-signature and income-tax non-disclosure objections when admissions and attesting evidence ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1621 to 1640 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the limitation challenge could be decided despite pendency before the Supreme Court because the assessees relied on an unstayed precedent. Reading sections 144C and 153 together, it rejected the Revenue's contention that limitation for a final assessment order under section 144C(13) must be tested only under section 144C. Applying the Roca Bathroom Products line of reasoning, it found the impugned final assessment orders for the relevant assessment years were passed beyond the permissible period and therefore barred by limitation. The orders were quashed, and the remaining grounds were left open.
The Tribunal held that the limitation challenge could be decided despite pendency before the Supreme Court because the assessees relied on an unstayed precedent. Reading sections 144C and 153 together, it rejected the Revenue's contention that limitation for a final assessment order under section 144C(13) must be tested only under section 144C. Applying the Roca Bathroom Products line of reasoning, it found the impugned final assessment orders for the relevant assessment years were passed beyond the permissible period and therefore barred by limitation. The orders were quashed, and the remaining grounds were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
