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...
Validity of reopening of assessment questioned due to errors in original notice. Notice alleged non-filing of return, later contradicted. AO failed to evaluate return before alleging income escape. AO's opinion on income taxation not based on due process. DTAA benefits not part of original notice. Final order relied on assessment from prior year. Allotment of shares under scheme not considered. Reassessment reasons must be consistent. Petitioner refuted remittances, claimed DTAA exemption. AO's denial of treaty benefits without original basis not valid. Court ruled in favor of assessee, criticizing AO's inconsistent approach.
Validity of reopening of assessment questioned due to errors in original notice. Notice alleged non-filing of return, later contradicted. AO failed to evaluate return before alleging income escape. AO's opinion on income taxation not based on due process. DTAA benefits not part of original notice. Final order relied on assessment from prior year. Allotment of shares under scheme not considered. Reassessment reasons must be consistent. Petitioner refuted remittances, claimed DTAA exemption. AO's denial of treaty benefits without original basis not valid. Court ruled in favor of assessee, criticizing AO's inconsistent approach.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.