Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96301 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.