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 faceless assessment challenged due to non-compliance with Section 151A - notices issued by Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). High Court held that JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148, particularly in view of Section 151A read with Central Government notification dated 29 March 2022. Relying on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court ruled the impugned notices illegal and invalid as JAO had no jurisdiction. Petition allowed in favor of assessee.
Validity of faceless assessment challenged due to non-compliance with Section 151A - notices issued by Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). High Court held that JAO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148, particularly in view of Section 151A read with Central Government notification dated 29 March 2022. Relying on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Court ruled the impugned notices illegal and invalid as JAO had no jurisdiction. Petition allowed in favor of assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.