Categories
Blog Updates

Negative Blocking of ECL Without Available ITC Held Impermissible | HC

Negative blocking of ECL

Case Details: ISKCON Steel Traders vs. Union of India - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 396 (Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Mrs Lisa Gill & Parmod Goyal, JJ.
  • Deepak Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Ajay Kalra, Sr. Standing Counsel & Ms Ridhi Bansal, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the action of the jurisdictional officer under GST effected negative blocking of input tax credit (ITC) in the Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. The petitioner submitted that Rule 86A does not authorise blocking of ITC exceeding the credit actually available and that negative blocking without available ITC is impermissible. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court permits withholding only of available ITC in the Electronic Credit Ledger and does not authorise negative blocking in absence of available credit. The Court observed that the provision is designed for emergent situations and can be exercised without prior notice but must be limited to credit actually present in the ledger. The Court further held that the authorities retain the statutory remedies for recovery under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act if any amount is due. The Court directed that negative blocking without available ITC is impermissible.

List of Cases Referred to

The post Negative Blocking of ECL Without Available ITC Held Impermissible | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

IBBI Introduces CP Form Modification Utility and Late Fee for Delayed Filings

IBBI CP Forms delayed filing fee

Circular No. IBBI/CIRP/89/2025; Dated: 18.12.2025

1. Regulatory Background

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has introduced important procedural changes relating to filing of forms under Regulation 40B of the IBBI (Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process) Regulations.

The changes include:

  • Introduction of a modification utility for CP Forms filed on the IBBI portal, and
  • Commencement of levy of fees for delayed filing of forms.

These measures aim to improve data accuracy, regulatory compliance, and timeliness of disclosures by Insolvency Professionals (IPs).

2. Introduction of Modification Utility in CP Forms

To address errors or omissions in filings, IBBI has enabled a modification utility on the portal.

2.1 Key Feature

Where an Insolvency Professional identifies any deficiency in a form already submitted, the IP may:

  • Access the modification utility, and
  • Make the necessary corrections or updates to the filed CP Form.

2.2 Regulatory Significance

  • Eliminates the need for informal correspondence or re-filing
  • Ensures accuracy and completeness of insolvency process data
  • Facilitates better regulatory monitoring and analytics

3. Levy of Fee for Delayed Filing of Forms

IBBI has also operationalised the fee mechanism for delayed filing as provided under Regulation 40B of the CIRP Regulations.

3.1 Applicability

  • Applies to all forms that were due on or before 31 December 2025
  • Where such forms are submitted after 31 December 2025, a fee becomes payable

3.2 Fee Structure

  • ₹500 per form
  • For each calendar month of delay
  • Fee is calculated form-wise, not consolidated

This introduces a recurring financial consequence for prolonged delays.

4. Effective Date

  • The fee requirement applies to all eligible delayed forms filed after 31 December 2025
  • The modification utility is available immediately on the portal

5. Regulatory Intent

The measures are intended to:

  • Improve timeliness and discipline in statutory filings
  • Encourage self-correction through the modification utility
  • Reduce regulatory follow-ups on inaccurate or incomplete submissions
  • Ensure reliable insolvency ecosystem data for supervision and policymaking

6. Compliance Takeaways for Insolvency Professionals

IPs should:

  • Review all pending and past-due CP Forms immediately
  • File delayed forms at the earliest to minimise monthly fee exposure
  • Use the modification utility promptly upon identifying any error
  • Strengthen internal filing calendars and documentation checks
  • Budget for potential late fees where delays are unavoidable

Failure to comply may result in:

  • Accumulation of monthly fees
  • Regulatory scrutiny during inspections or disciplinary proceedings

7. Key Takeaway

From 1 January 2026 onwards, delayed filing of CP Forms under Regulation 40B carries a financial cost, while the newly introduced modification utility provides a structured mechanism for correcting deficiencies in filings.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post IBBI Introduces CP Form Modification Utility and Late Fee for Delayed Filings appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[World Tax News] Dutch Government Publishes Overview of 2026 Tax Measures and More

Dutch Government's 2026 Tax Measures

Editorial Team  [2025] 181 taxmann.com 634 (Article)

World Tax News provides a weekly snippet of tax news from around the globe. Here is a glimpse of the tax happening in the world this week:

1. Dutch Government Publishes Overview of 2026 Tax Measures

The Dutch Ministry of Finance has released an overview of the main tax changes for 2026 following Senate approval of the 2026 Tax Plan and related laws on 16 December 2025.

Key measures include revised income tax brackets (lower first-bracket rate, higher second-bracket rate, unchanged top rate), a further reduction in the self-employed deduction, amendments to the ETK scheme restricting tax-free reimbursements, lower income thresholds for the labour tax credit, and the introduction of CBAM levies on imports based on CO₂ emissions.

Additional changes include reduced tax incentives for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, a lower taxable benefit discount for zero-emission company cars, an increase in VAT on short-term accommodation (excluding camping), a reduction in real estate transfer tax for residential property, a higher gambling tax rate, new reporting obligations for crypto-asset service providers under DAC8, and an increase in late-payment interest to 4.3% from 2026.

The Senate also approved several accompanying bills, covering technical tax amendments effective from 1 January 2026, distance-based flight taxation from 2027, streamlined taxpayer inspection rights, updates to the Minimum Tax Act aligned with OECD guidance (largely retroactive), implementation of DAC9 for exchange of GloBE information, and further amendments to environmental legislation to operationalise CBAM.

Source  Government of the Netherlands

2. Australia Releases New and Updated Pillar Two Guidance, Including for Tax Consolidated Groups

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released new guidance on the Pillar Two global minimum tax on 17 December 2025, focusing on the interaction of the Pillar Two rules with Australia’s tax consolidation regime. The newly issued guidance addresses, in particular:

  • Pillar Two lodgment obligations for tax consolidated groups, explaining how filing requirements apply where entities are members of a tax consolidated group;
  • Top-up tax for tax consolidated groups, outlining the methodology for calculating and allocating top-up tax within consolidated groups; and
  • Pillar Two reporting for tax consolidated groups, describing available reporting simplifications for consolidated groups under the Pillar Two framework.

In addition, the ATO has updated several related guidance materials, including:

  • Global and domestic minimum tax, providing an overview of the implementation of Pillar Two under the OECD/G20 Two-Pillar Solution for multinational groups in Australia;
  • When and how the Pillar Two rules apply, explaining the operation, scope, and applicability of the global and domestic minimum tax rules;
  • Lodging, paying and other Pillar Two obligations, setting out compliance requirements such as returns, payment obligations, and key deadlines;
  • Transitional CbC reporting safe harbour, detailing the application of the transitional Country-by-Country reporting safe harbour under Pillar Two; and
  • Specific Pillar Two issues, addressing particular matters raised by stakeholders through consultation and other channels that are not covered elsewhere in the Pillar Two guidance.

Source Australian Taxation Office

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [World Tax News] Dutch Government Publishes Overview of 2026 Tax Measures and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Policy Advocacy for EU–India Business Is Charitable Activity u/s 2(15) | ITAT

Charitable activity under section 2(15)

Case Details: Federation of European Business in India vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Accountant Member
  • Amol SinhaAnkit Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
  • Jitender Singh, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, a non-profit company, registered under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, filed its Form No. 10AB for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) as it was engaged in ”Advancement of any other objects of general public utility”, which were charitable activities.

The CIT (Exemptions) rejected the request for regular registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) and also cancelled the provisional registration granted for assessment years 2024-25 to 2026-27 on the ground that the assessee was not engaged in any charitable activity as defined under section 2(15).

ITAT Held

On appeal, the Delhi Tribunal held that as per the object of the assessee, it had to promote commerce in India with the European Union business community and to protect & facilitate the interest of the European Union business community in India by advocacy of policy between the European Union business community and the Indian public authorities regarding trade policy, ease of doing business, intellectual property right protection and European union investment protection in India.

It was evident from the assessee’s object that it had to build an overall environment that secures the interests and well-being of the European Union business community, so that they have ease of doing business in India. The issue here was only whether an entity that watches over the business interests of its members can be said to be engaged in charitable activities as defined under section 2(15).

In the given case, it was not the case of the CIT that the assessee was found engaged in any trade and commerce. The assessee was various European business entities, European trade associations, etc. Thus, the CIT was not justified in the eyes of the law by rejecting the registration under section 12A on the reason that the assessee was not doing any charitable activity within the ambit of section 2(15).

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Policy Advocacy for EU–India Business Is Charitable Activity u/s 2(15) | ITAT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Minor Penalties Don’t Bar Voluntary Retirement Under Master Circular 35 | HC

Voluntary retirement under Master Circular 35

Case Details: Union of India vs. Dharmendra Kumar Sahu - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 281 (HC-Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Attau Rahman Masoodi & Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
  • Ajit Kumar Dwivedi for the Petitioner.
  • Amit Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent, a railway servant, applied for voluntary retirement citing health issues. No order was passed on his application, leading him to file an original application seeking a direction to decide his voluntary retirement request. In the original application, he pleaded completion of more than 22 years of service.

Petitioners-employer admitted before the Tribunal that the respondent had completed more than 22 years of service, and stated that two minor punishments had been imposed on 19.02.2020. The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the petitioners to grant the respondent’s request for voluntary retirement upon the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days and to pay him all his retirement dues.

Petitioners filed an instant writ challenging the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal.

It was noted that the Master Circular No. 35 issued by the Railway Board does not provide that the request for voluntary retirement of a person who has been awarded a minor punishment cannot be accepted.

Further, petitioners did not controvert the specific plea of the railway servant that he had completed more than 22 years of service; there was no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal by issuing a direction to petitioners to allow the railway servant’s request for voluntary retirement.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the respondent had already been punished for his unauthorised absence from duty and that punishment did not provide that periods during which the respondent remained absent shall not be counted in his service or that he shall not be paid salary for those periods. Thus, there was no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal allowing the original application filed by the respondent.

The post Minor Penalties Don’t Bar Voluntary Retirement Under Master Circular 35 | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[Opinion] Charitable Trust – Registration Under MSME Act, 2006, Rights and Obligation and Applicability of 43B(h)

Section 43B(h) applicability to charitable trusts

CA Naresh Kumar Kabra & Rachit Gupta  [2025] 181 taxmann.com 522 (Article)

1. Introduction

As Section 43B(h) reshapes how businesses handle payments to MSEs, many charitable institutions are now asking a critical question—does this rule apply to them too? To understand the same let us first know what is section 43B(h) of the Income tax Act, 1961.

With effect from 1st April 2023 (Assessment Year 2024-25 onward), a new clause – clause (h)—has been added to Section 43B. Under this clause, amounts payable to a micro or small enterprise must be paid within the time-limit prescribed under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), if the payer wants to claim the deduction in the same year.

In simple words, if a business buys goods or services from a registered MSME and does not pay them on time, the expense will NOT be allowed as a deduction in the same financial year it will be allowed only in the year in which the payment is actually made.

Now to understand the time limit prescribed let us read the Section 15 of the MSMED Act, 2006, the said section states that

“Where any supplier supplies any goods or renders any services to any buyer, the buyer shall make payment therefor on or before the date agreed upon in writing between the supplier and the buyer or, where there is no agreement in this behalf, before the appointed day”.

It further states that:

“In no case shall the period agreed upon in writing exceed forty-five days from the day of acceptance or the day of deemed acceptance.”

If payment is delayed beyond the statutory limit, the buyer is liable to pay interest as per Section 16 of the MSMED Act. This interest is charged at 3 times the bank rate notified by the RBI.

Here the Appointed day means 15th day from the date of acceptance of goods or services, it can be understood that where there is no written agreement between buyer and Supplier registered under MSMED act, 2006 the payment must be made within 15 days from the day of acceptance of goods or service and where there is an agreement then the maximum permissible limit for making the payment is 45 days and if the payment is not made within the time limit, the expense shall not be allowed as deduction while computing the income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further interest on shall be charged for the delay made in the payment. This amendment signals a major shift – from an accrual-based deduction regime to a payment-based deduction regime for MSE-related payments thereby promoting prompt payments and supporting the liquidity of small enterprises.

2. Applicability of Section 43B(h) on Charitable Institutions

Now let us understand the applicability of Section 43B(h) on different categories of Assesses, for the regular assesses there is no confusion this section applies as discussed above. To get the clarity on the applicability of 43B(h) on charitable institutions let us go through the chapter wise bifurcation of the Income Tax Act, it can be said that the taxation of the Charitable institutions or Trusts is within the Scope of Chapter III of the Act which contains the sections from Section 11 to 13 and the applicability of 43B(h) is covered under Chapter IV of the Act, therefore it can be said that Section 43B(h) is not within the scope of Chapter III of the Act which governs the Trust Taxation.

Further under Sections 11 to 13, there are specific references to the provisions of ‘Profits & Gains of Business or Profession’ which have been made applicable to the computation of income under Section 11, such as the disallowances for cash payments above Rs. 10,000 under section 40A(3) or disallowances for non-deduction of tax on payments made to residents under section 40(a)(ia). However, there is no reference to disallowance under Section 43B(h) while computing income under Section 11. From the above references and facts it can be understood that 43B(h) does not applies to the Charitable Institution.

3. Trust Expenditure – The Actual Application Rule

The applicability of Section 43B(h) is effective from 1st April 2023, however, long before this amendment from The Finance Act 2022, the Income-tax Act set the line for treatment of expenditure of charitable and religious trusts, it is fundamentally governed by the concept of actual application, as reflected across Sections 11 and 12. Section 11(1)(a) allows exemption only for income “applied” during the year, a term consistently interpreted to mean actual spending rather than accrual.

This payment-linked approach is further reinforced by Sections 11(1)(b), 11(1)(c), and 11(2), all of which emphasise real utilisation of funds and not mere book entries. Section 12 subjects voluntary contributions to the same application requirements, while Section 13 examines the actual utilisation of funds to ensure they are not misapplied for the benefit of specified persons.

Taken together, these provisions create an inherently stringent framework under which trusts receive tax benefits only on actual payment, with no scope for recognition of accrued expenses. As a result, trusts already operate under a regime more restrictive than the timelines introduced for business entities under Section 43B(h), since trusts are never permitted to claim expenditure until the moment of actual outflow—irrespective of any statutory grace period applicable elsewhere.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] Charitable Trust – Registration Under MSME Act, 2006, Rights and Obligation and Applicability of 43B(h) appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Fraudulent ITC Demand Not Entertained in Writ – Appeal Directed | HC

fraudulent ITC demand

Case Details: Aman Sanitation vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST [2025] 181 taxmann.com 365 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
  • Shivender Kr. SharmaUrooj Chaudhary, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Pranay Mohan Govil, SSC for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged an order-in-original on the ground of alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC). The proceedings arose from an investigation into fake entities transferring ITC, with notices issued identifying the petitioner as a purported recipient of liability. The petitioner submitted that the demand violated the principles of natural justice due to the absence of a personal hearing and the failure to consider its reply. It was contended that the demand should be quashed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that writ jurisdiction in fraudulent ITC matters is generally not exercised, given the complex facts and potential exchequer impact. The Court clarified that writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available only in limited circumstances, such as violations of fundamental rights, breaches of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenges to vires. Since the petitioner was aware of the notices and had responded, no exceptional ground arose. The Court did not interfere with the demand order. It directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, subject to a pre-deposit.

List of Cases Referred to

The post Fraudulent ITC Demand Not Entertained in Writ – Appeal Directed | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

GST Refund Rejection Quashed as CGST Rules Omitted Without Saving Clause | HC

CGST Rules omission

Case Details: JJ Plastalloy (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 386 (Gujarat)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
  • Anand Nainawati for the Petitioner.
  • Utkarsh R. Sharma for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the rejection or refusal of IGST export refund claims by the Department of Revenue. The petitioners had submitted applications for IGST refunds and had received show-cause notices regarding the claims, with some orders already passed before the issuance of the notification. It was contended that, due to the omission, the provisions were rendered redundant ab initio, applying to all pending proceedings and pre-notification orders that had not attained finality. They argued that as a result, the rejection or refusal of their refund claims lacked any statutory basis and should be quashed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the omission of Rules 89(4B) and 96(10) from the CGST Rules, by Notification No. 20/2024, dated 08-10-2024, without any saving clause, rendered those provisions redundant ab initio. The Court emphasised that this omission extended to all pending proceedings and pre-notification orders that had not been finalised due to appeals or other procedural delays. It noted that the Appellate Tribunal under the GST regime had not been constituted, meaning that no further statutory remedy was available. Therefore, orders-in-appeal could not attain finality. It was directed that the petitioners were entitled to IGST refunds under Section 54 of the CGST Act.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post GST Refund Rejection Quashed as CGST Rules Omitted Without Saving Clause | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Govt. Introduces the Securities Markets Code, 2025 in Lok Sabha

Securities Markets Code 2025

Bill No. 200 of 2025; Dated: 18.12.2025

1. Legislative Overview

The Government of India has introduced the Securities Markets Code, 2025 in the Lok Sabha, marking a major step towards consolidation and modernisation of India’s securities market laws.

The proposed Code seeks to replace and subsume three existing statutes into a single, comprehensive legislative framework:

  • SEBI Act, 1992
  • Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956
  • Depositories Act, 1996

This consolidation is intended to simplify the legal architecture governing securities markets and remove overlaps, inconsistencies, and legacy provisions.

2. Objectives of the Securities Markets Code

The Code aims to:

  • Rationalise and consolidate dispersed provisions across multiple statutes
  • Provide a modern, technology-aligned regulatory framework
  • Strengthen investor protection mechanisms
  • Facilitate efficient capital mobilisation for economic growth
  • Align securities regulation with the needs of a fast-growing Indian economy

The overarching vision is to support India’s financial self-reliance by enabling domestic capital markets to fund productive investment more effectively.

3. Impact on Financial Markets and Economy

The Code is expected to:

  • Deepen and broaden capital markets
  • Improve regulatory certainty and predictability
  • Encourage domestic and foreign investment
  • Enhance India’s position as a global financial and investment destination
  • Support long-term infrastructure and enterprise funding through robust securities markets

4. Governance and Conflict of Interest Safeguards

To strengthen regulatory governance, the Code introduces explicit conflict-of-interest controls:

  • Members of the Board are required to disclose any direct or indirect interest
  • Such disclosures are mandatory before participating in decision-making
  • This ensures objectivity, transparency, and integrity in regulatory actions

These provisions are designed to reinforce trust in the regulatory process.

5. Streamlined Adjudication Framework

The Code simplifies enforcement and adjudication by:

  • Streamlining adjudication procedures
  • Ensuring that all quasi-judicial actions follow a single, unified adjudication process
  • Mandating an appropriate fact-finding exercise before adjudication

This reduces fragmentation, procedural delays, and duplicative proceedings under different laws.

6. Introduction of an Ombudsperson for Investor Grievances

A key investor-centric reform under the Code is the introduction of an Ombudsperson mechanism:

  • Serves as a comprehensive platform for redressal of unresolved investor grievances
  • Provides speedy, accessible, and effective dispute resolution
  • Strengthens confidence of retail investors in the securities market ecosystem

This mechanism aims to make grievance redressal simpler, faster, and more responsive.

7. Decriminalisation of Minor Contraventions

To promote ease of doing business, the Code proposes:

  • Decriminalisation of minor, procedural, and technical contraventions
  • Replacement of criminal liability with civil penalties in appropriate cases

This reduces compliance burden, litigation risk, and fear of criminal prosecution for routine or technical lapses, while retaining deterrence for serious violations.

8. Regulatory Intent and Significance

The Securities Markets Code, 2025 seeks to:

  • Modernise securities regulation in line with global best practices
  • Reduce regulatory complexity and compliance friction
  • Enhance investor confidence and market integrity
  • Enable faster dispute resolution and enforcement
  • Support sustainable growth of India’s financial sector

9. Next Steps

The Bill will be taken up for Parliamentary scrutiny, debate, and possible amendment. Once enacted and notified, it will replace the existing three laws, ushering in a single, unified securities law regime in India.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post Govt. Introduces the Securities Markets Code, 2025 in Lok Sabha appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

ITAT Rectification Limitation Runs From Order Receipt Date | HC

limitation for rectification under section 254(2)

Case Details: Accost Media LLP vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 181 taxmann.com 298 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • B. P. Colabawalla & Amit S. Jamsandekar, JJ.
  • P. J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Counsel & Gunjan Kakkad, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Arjun Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, Accost Media LLP, filed a rectification application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10-12-2024. The said order was received by the assessee on 24-3-2025, and the rectification application was filed on 16-7-2025.

The Registry of the Tribunal issued a notice stating that the rectification application was barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal’s order was passed. The assessee explained that the application could not have been filed before the order was received and was therefore within the prescribed time limit. However, the Tribunal rejected the rectification application as time-barred by order dated 13-10-2025.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of the rectification application. The High Court examined section 254(2), read with rule 34A and rule 9 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, and observed that a rectification application cannot be filed without being served with a copy of the order sought to be rectified.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the period of limitation for filing a rectification application under section 254(2) commences from the date of communication of the Tribunal’s order and not from the date on which the order is passed. Since the assessee had filed the rectification application within six months from the date of receipt of the order, the Tribunal had misdirected itself in treating the application as time-barred.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the rectification application was filed within time and quashed the Tribunal’s order rejecting the application as barred by limitation, while permitting the assessee to raise all contentions on merits in the appeal filed against the original Tribunal order.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post ITAT Rectification Limitation Runs From Order Receipt Date | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source