Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1021 to 1040 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Once the original reassessment orders u/s 148 were quashed, they ceased to exist legally. The rectification order u/s 154 was premised on the quashed orders, which could not be revived or corrected. Section 154 could only be invoked if a valid order capable of rectification existed. Since the original orders were non-existent after being quashed, invoking Section 154 was impermissible. Additionally, the condition u/s 149(1)(b) requiring income escaping assessment to be Rs. 50 lakhs or more was not fulfilled. Consequently, the rectification order was unsustainable and quashed by the High Court.
Once the original reassessment orders u/s 148 were quashed, they ceased to exist legally. The rectification order u/s 154 was premised on the quashed orders, which could not be revived or corrected. Section 154 could only be invoked if a valid order capable of rectification existed. Since the original orders were non-existent after being quashed, invoking Section 154 was impermissible. Additionally, the condition u/s 149(1)(b) requiring income escaping assessment to be Rs. 50 lakhs or more was not fulfilled. Consequently, the rectification order was unsustainable and quashed by the High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.