Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. Inordinate delay in recording the satisfaction note can lead to the proceedings being quashed as time-barred.
The Bombay High Court held that the reassessment notice under Section 148 was issued after the surviving limitation period expired. As a result, the entire reassessment proceedings and assessment order were quashed.
The Bombay High Court ruled that limitation under Section 201(3) must be calculated based on the financial year in which each quarterly TDS statement is filed. The decision confirms that annual or cumulative computation of limitation is not permitted.
The court held that a retracted statement by a trustee alleging capitation fee collection cannot justify tax additions without corroborative evidence. In the absence of proof from students or supporting documents, the Revenue’s presumption was held unsustainable.
The High Court held that a tax notice and assessment issued in the name of a company that had already merged into another entity were invalid. The ruling clarifies that once the tax authority is informed of a merger, proceedings must be issued in the name of the transferee company.
The High Court held that reassessment proceedings for AY 2013-14 were time-barred after computing the surviving limitation as clarified by the Supreme Court. The notice issued beyond the remaining limitation period was quashed.
The Court clarified that mere pendency of information exchange requests under DTAA cannot justify continuing a Look Out Circular. Where assessments are quashed and no tax liability exists, indefinite travel restriction is unconstitutional.
The Tribunal ruled that a reassessment order passed prior to notification of the faceless reassessment scheme under Section 151A was without jurisdiction. As the enabling notification came after the assessment date, the entire order was declared void.
ITAT Delhi held that recording a single satisfaction note for multiple assessment years violates Section 153C requirements. As no year-specific incriminating material was identified, the assessments were quashed along with the related penalty.
The ITAT held that Section 43B applies even if interest is capitalised to work-in-progress instead of claimed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer was justified in reducing WIP for unpaid interest to a Scheduled Bank.
