Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Reassessment under section 148 was quashed because the recorded reasons were vague, factually inconsistent and unsupported by an independent application of mind. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on portal information and investigation material alleging fictitious profit, but the reassessment order treated the same figure differently and failed to maintain the very basis on which jurisdiction was assumed. No live nexus was shown between the material and escapement of income, and the assessee's purchase, sale, bank and D-Mat records were not dislodged by adverse material. The reopening was held to rest on borrowed satisfaction, so the reassessment was unsustainable and the merits were not examined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.