Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Mandatory pre-show cause intimation under Rule 142(1)(A) was not issued before initiation of the assessment proceedings, and that fact was undisputed. Applying the earlier Division Bench ruling on the same point, the HC held that such non-compliance vitiates the assessment order and requires it to be set aside. The impugned assessment for the relevant financial year was accordingly quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with law, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within the time granted.
Mandatory pre-show cause intimation under Rule 142(1)(A) was not issued before initiation of the assessment proceedings, and that fact was undisputed. Applying the earlier Division Bench ruling on the same point, the HC held that such non-compliance vitiates the assessment order and requires it to be set aside. The impugned assessment for the relevant financial year was accordingly quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh assessment in accordance with law, subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed tax within the time granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
