Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4809 
Join Channel 
