Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For assessment year 2015-16, a reassessment notice issued under section 148 on 15.04.2022 was held time-barred because it was issued after six years from the end of the assessment year. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's view that, for assessment years beginning on or before 01.04.2021, the first proviso to section 149 preserves the earlier limitation bar and the amended ten-year reopening period cannot operate retrospectively to revive a barred case. It also held that the exclusion provisions for time spent in section 148A proceedings do not override that limitation bar. The reassessment was therefore quashed.
For assessment year 2015-16, a reassessment notice issued under section 148 on 15.04.2022 was held time-barred because it was issued after six years from the end of the assessment year. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's view that, for assessment years beginning on or before 01.04.2021, the first proviso to section 149 preserves the earlier limitation bar and the amended ten-year reopening period cannot operate retrospectively to revive a barred case. It also held that the exclusion provisions for time spent in section 148A proceedings do not override that limitation bar. The reassessment was therefore quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.