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...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of assessment proceedings under Sec 153A where the approval process under Sec 153D was not followed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the approval granted lacked proper consideration of factual and legal aspects, being a mere formality without actual supervision by the sanctioning authority. The Tribunal found a similar issue favorably adjudicated in the assessee's own case for another assessment year, where the lack of propriety in such approvals was acknowledged. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment order for the year in question, based on a deficient approval process, lacked enforceability in law and was therefore quashed in favor of the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of assessment proceedings under Sec 153A where the approval process under Sec 153D was not followed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the approval granted lacked proper consideration of factual and legal aspects, being a mere formality without actual supervision by the sanctioning authority. The Tribunal found a similar issue favorably adjudicated in the assessee's own case for another assessment year, where the lack of propriety in such approvals was acknowledged. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment order for the year in question, based on a deficient approval process, lacked enforceability in law and was therefore quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.