Permanent Establishment and Business Connection: foreign consultancy receipts not attributable where no fixed base or corporate veil piercing establis...
Limitation period commencement and procedural inquiry rules: identity-based limitation upheld; complaints by authorised public servants need not attra...
Reassessment notice issued after three years was held barred by limitation because the factual foundation was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank statements showed cash deposits of only Rs. 19,50,000 in the two IDBI Bank accounts, not the higher aggregate assumed by the AO. It held that the validity of notice under section 148 must be tested on the correct facts, and an otherwise time-barred notice cannot be sustained by relying on erroneous figures in the section 148A(b) notice, the section 148A(d) order, or the section 148 notice itself. The reassessment order was therefore also vitiated.
Reassessment notice issued after three years was held barred by limitation because the factual foundation was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank statements showed cash deposits of only Rs. 19,50,000 in the two IDBI Bank accounts, not the higher aggregate assumed by the AO. It held that the validity of notice under section 148 must be tested on the correct facts, and an otherwise time-barred notice cannot be sustained by relying on erroneous figures in the section 148A(b) notice, the section 148A(d) order, or the section 148 notice itself. The reassessment order was therefore also vitiated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
