Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that a rectification order under Section 154(7) cannot be passed after four years from the end of the financial year in which the original order was made. As the original order was dated February 25, 2015, the limitation expired on March 31, 2019, but the rectification order was issued on March 25, 2022; it was therefore time-barred and a jurisdictional error. The Court also noted that the Department had not shown service of prior notice under Section 154(3), and accepted the objection that the order lacked a Document Identification Number. The writ petition was allowed and the rectification order, together with consequential recovery proceedings, was set aside.
HC held that a rectification order under Section 154(7) cannot be passed after four years from the end of the financial year in which the original order was made. As the original order was dated February 25, 2015, the limitation expired on March 31, 2019, but the rectification order was issued on March 25, 2022; it was therefore time-barred and a jurisdictional error. The Court also noted that the Department had not shown service of prior notice under Section 154(3), and accepted the objection that the order lacked a Document Identification Number. The writ petition was allowed and the rectification order, together with consequential recovery proceedings, was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.