S. 237 : Refund-Limitation-Excess TDS-CBDT Circular prescribing two-year time limit for refund claim of tax erroneously deducted at source held ultra vires-In absence of statutory limitation under ss. 237/239, Board cannot curtail substantive right to claim refund-Interest on FCCBs/ECBs utilised for overseas subsidiary held covered by s. 9(1)(v)(b), hence no TDS deductible-Taxing statutes are interpreted by following the principles of strict interpretation. While interpreting a taxing statute, there is no room for any intendment. [S. 9(1)(v)(b), 119, 195, 200, 203, 239, R. 31, Art. 226]

S. 237 : Refunds -Erroneous deposit of tax under incorrect head-Assessee subsequently deposited tax under correct head -Excess payment due to error not disputed -Department directed to verify challans and grant refund if no other impediment -If refund cannot be processed, reasons to be communicated in writing -Assessee entitled to avail remedies in accordance with law. [Art. 226]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Book profit-In fiscal matters, bank guarantee is not an appropriate substitute for cash deposit and unconditional stay should ordinarily not be granted. [S.115J, Art. 226]

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Book profit-Mere existence of a strong prima facie case does not automatically warrant unconditional stay-Tribunal having upheld addition under section 115JB, conditional stay justified-Pending rectification application and possible reduction in demand considered-Interim relief granted on deposit of Rs. 60 crores within four weeks-SLP dismissed. [S. 115JB, Art.136]

S. 164 : Representative assessee—Charge of tax—Beneficiaries unknown—Alternative Investment Fund (Category III)—Where SEBI law prohibits an AIF from accepting investments or identifying investors before registration, non-mention of investors/beneficial interests in original trust deed cannot attract maximum marginal rate under section 164—Doctrine of impossibility (“lex non cogit ad impossibilia”) applied—Once beneficiaries and their shares become determinable under contribution agreements, requirement of law stands satisfied—CBDT Circular No. 13 of 2014 could not be applied in such impossible circumstances—Board for Advance Rulings order quashed. [Ss. 161, 245Q, 245R(4), SEBI Act, 1992, s. 12, SEBI (AIF) Regulations, 2012, regs. 3, 6(3), Art. 226]

S. 158BC: Block assessment-Search and seizure-Deemed seizure-Limitation-Search initiated on 8-12-1999-Prohibitory order under section 132(3) on 21-1-2000-Search concluded on 2-3-2000-Assessment order dated 28-3-2002 not barred by limitation-Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide on merits. [S. 132, 132(3), 143(3), 158BE, 260A]

S. 153A : Assessment-Search–Limitation-Exchange of information under Indo-Swiss DTAA-Reference made to Swiss authorities for period prior to 1-4-2011 not maintainable under amended Article 26-Benefit of exclusion of time under Explanation (ix) to S. 153B not available-Assessment orders rightly held barred by limitation-DTAA-India-Swiss. [S.69C,90, 132, 143(3), 153B, Expl. (ix), Art. 14, 26]

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Audit objection-Limitation-Amended provisions of section 149 apply to notices issued after 1-4-2021 even for earlier assessment years-Notice issued within six years not barred-Audit objection must clearly state that assessment was not made in accordance with Act-Reopening valid only to limited issues supported by definite audit objection-Matter remanded. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, Art. 226]

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Review of original scrutiny assessment impermissible-No fresh tangible material-Loans and expenditure fully disclosed in limited scrutiny-Notice under section 148A(b), order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, 151, Art. 226]

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Sanction-Specified authority-Time limits-Surviving time-Effect of extension under 2020 Act-Approval of specified authority-Though approval under section 151(1) by Principal Commissioner for passing order under section 148A(d) and issuing notice under section 148 was valid, notices/orders issued beyond “surviving time” as explained in UOI v. Ashish Agarwal(2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) were barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(b), 151(1), Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, S. 3(1), Art. 226]