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" ?
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
