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 of assessment - The High Court notes that certain incomes were raised for the first time in the impugned order, without prior mention. Despite Petitioner's explanations and evidence, the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to justify dissatisfaction with the disclosures. The Court concludes that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind, as evident from the lack of scrutiny by higher authorities. Consequently, the Court quashes the impugned order and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.
Validity of reopening of assessment - The High Court notes that certain incomes were raised for the first time in the impugned order, without prior mention. Despite Petitioner's explanations and evidence, the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to justify dissatisfaction with the disclosures. The Court concludes that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind, as evident from the lack of scrutiny by higher authorities. Consequently, the Court quashes the impugned order and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.