Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
A pure legal challenge to a reassessment notice was admitted in cross objection because it went to the root of jurisdiction and had already been raised below. On merits, the ITAT held that a reopening notice issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year was time-barred. Applying the jurisdictional High Court view, it ruled that the extended reassessment limitation under the amended law operates prospectively and does not revive cases where the old six-year period had already expired. The notice was quashed, the reassessment was invalidated, the assessee's cross objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal on merits failed.
A pure legal challenge to a reassessment notice was admitted in cross objection because it went to the root of jurisdiction and had already been raised below. On merits, the ITAT held that a reopening notice issued beyond six years from the end of the relevant assessment year was time-barred. Applying the jurisdictional High Court view, it ruled that the extended reassessment limitation under the amended law operates prospectively and does not revive cases where the old six-year period had already expired. The notice was quashed, the reassessment was invalidated, the assessee's cross objection was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal on merits failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
