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...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
A reopening notice issued under section 148 in the name of a company already struck off from the register is invalid because jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity. Participation by an ex-director does not cure the defect, and the consequential reassessment order under section 144 read with section 147 falls with the invalid notice. Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not assist the Revenue because no subsisting liability or obligation of the struck-off company remained on the date of reopening. The notice and reassessment were quashed.
A reopening notice issued under section 148 in the name of a company already struck off from the register is invalid because jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity. Participation by an ex-director does not cure the defect, and the consequential reassessment order under section 144 read with section 147 falls with the invalid notice. Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not assist the Revenue because no subsisting liability or obligation of the struck-off company remained on the date of reopening. The notice and reassessment were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.