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...
Validity of reopening proceedings - assessing authority not considering the reply-cum-objection filed by the petitioner - Period of limitation where monetary limit is below threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs - Joint Ownership of the property - The High Court quashed the entire enquiry proceeding, including the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148, deeming them beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court allowed the petitioner's application, emphasizing the procedural lapses and the incorrect application of the law by the tax department in this case.
Validity of reopening proceedings - assessing authority not considering the reply-cum-objection filed by the petitioner - Period of limitation where monetary limit is below threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs - Joint Ownership of the property - The High Court quashed the entire enquiry proceeding, including the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148, deeming them beyond jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The court allowed the petitioner's application, emphasizing the procedural lapses and the incorrect application of the law by the tax department in this case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.