“extension of limitation”

Courts must adopt a liberal approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, preferring to decide cases on their merits rather than allowing technicalities of limitation to scuttle justice. This principle applies to ensure the substantive rights of parties are not defeated by minor delays.

Expenditure incurred for the expansion, extension, or betterment of an existing business, or for improvisation that is part of the existing business, is allowable as revenue expenditure. Payments made for acquiring technical know-how and exclusive rights for setting up a new business can be capital expenditure.

A direction for special audit under Section 142(2A), issued near the expiry of the limitation period primarily to gain an extension of time or with instructions beyond the section's scope, is illegal, rendering the subsequent assessment time-barred.

When a new statutory provision is substituted for an existing one, the legislative intent is typically that the old provision is deemed deleted and does not remain in force unless there is a clear intention to keep it alive.

The time limits for reopening assessments under the new regime are reduced to three years, with an extension to ten years only for serious tax evasion cases involving concealment of Rs. 50 lakhs or more.

A notice issued under section 148 for AY 2014-15 is invalid if issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer, especially when the extended period of 6 years under section 149 may not apply.

An order for special audit under Section 142(2C) of the Income Tax Act must be passed within the prescribed time, including any extensions. An assessment order based on a special audit report submitted beyond the permissible period is void.

The Revenue Authorities cannot make a reference for assessment years if no information could have been provided for those years, and any extension of limitation based on such an invalid reference is impermissible.