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...
Assessee, a non-resident Indian residing outside India for over 25 years, challenged the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer to issue notice u/s 148 for reassessment proceedings. Evidence showed assessee's residential status as NRI on the date of notice issuance. Faceless Assessment Unit also acknowledged the case pertained to a non-resident individual, requiring assessment at the international charge. ITAT held ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer lacked jurisdiction when issuing the notice on 30.03.2022, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gain without considering the original cost and evidence provided by the assessee, resulting in a perverse order, which ITAT quashed.
Assessee, a non-resident Indian residing outside India for over 25 years, challenged the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer to issue notice u/s 148 for reassessment proceedings. Evidence showed assessee's residential status as NRI on the date of notice issuance. Faceless Assessment Unit also acknowledged the case pertained to a non-resident individual, requiring assessment at the international charge. ITAT held ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer lacked jurisdiction when issuing the notice on 30.03.2022, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gain without considering the original cost and evidence provided by the assessee, resulting in a perverse order, which ITAT quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
