Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
Reopening notices for years before AY 2021-22 could be issued after the 01.04.2021 amendment only if the pre-existing six-year limitation under section 149 was still alive on the date of notice. Applying the principle in UOI v. Rajiv Bansal and following Sridhar Lokesh, the Tribunal held that the first proviso bars retrospective use of the extended ten-year period; for AY 2015-16, the outer limit expired on 31.03.2022, so a notice issued on 01.04.2022 was time-barred. It further held that exclusion of time spent in section 148A proceedings could not revive a notice already barred under the first proviso. The reassessment was quashed and the additions were deleted.
Reopening notices for years before AY 2021-22 could be issued after the 01.04.2021 amendment only if the pre-existing six-year limitation under section 149 was still alive on the date of notice. Applying the principle in UOI v. Rajiv Bansal and following Sridhar Lokesh, the Tribunal held that the first proviso bars retrospective use of the extended ten-year period; for AY 2015-16, the outer limit expired on 31.03.2022, so a notice issued on 01.04.2022 was time-barred. It further held that exclusion of time spent in section 148A proceedings could not revive a notice already barred under the first proviso. The reassessment was quashed and the additions were deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
