Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
A second provisional attachment issued after the earlier order had expired was unsustainable where it rested on the same facts and no change in circumstances was shown. The Court held that Section 83(2) does not permit a fresh attachment on substantially identical grounds after the statutory one-year period, as this would defeat the built-in safeguard against misuse. It also held that provisional attachment is only a pre-emptive protective measure and cannot be used as a post-assessment recovery device once assessment has culminated in a final order. The petition was allowed and the attachment was quashed.
A second provisional attachment issued after the earlier order had expired was unsustainable where it rested on the same facts and no change in circumstances was shown. The Court held that Section 83(2) does not permit a fresh attachment on substantially identical grounds after the statutory one-year period, as this would defeat the built-in safeguard against misuse. It also held that provisional attachment is only a pre-emptive protective measure and cannot be used as a post-assessment recovery device once assessment has culminated in a final order. The petition was allowed and the attachment was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
