Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 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" ?
The High Court held that an Assessing Officer could not invoke Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to rectify a determination made by the Principal Commissioner under Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The scheme itself contains no rectification power, and Section 5(3) makes the amount determined and the order passed under the scheme final and conclusive. As the Act of 2020 does not apply the rectification provisions of the Income-tax Act to such determinations, the rectification order was without authority and was quashed.
The High Court held that an Assessing Officer could not invoke Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to rectify a determination made by the Principal Commissioner under Section 5(2) of the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The scheme itself contains no rectification power, and Section 5(3) makes the amount determined and the order passed under the scheme final and conclusive. As the Act of 2020 does not apply the rectification provisions of the Income-tax Act to such determinations, the rectification order was without authority and was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.