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 ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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.