Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 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" ?
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.