Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
