Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
Page of 4920
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 98394 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court held that the Division Bench erred in not considering Section 58(f) of the Act. Despite the respondent's claim of threat and coercion in executing the Agreement, the burden was on him to prove it since he admitted to signing it. The First Impugned Order suffered from legal errors and could not withstand scrutiny. Regarding the delay, the appellant's plea of engaging counsel only for the delay condonation was rightly rejected as 'fantastic' by the Division Bench. The First Impugned Order was set aside, effectively nullifying the Second Impugned Order, though it was not faulted. However, costs of Rs.1,20,000 were imposed on the appellant for wasting judicial time, to be utilized for juvenile welfare, advocate-clerks' welfare, and legal aid as directed. The appeal was allowed.
The court held that the Division Bench erred in not considering Section 58(f) of the Act. Despite the respondent's claim of threat and coercion in executing the Agreement, the burden was on him to prove it since he admitted to signing it. The First Impugned Order suffered from legal errors and could not withstand scrutiny. Regarding the delay, the appellant's plea of engaging counsel only for the delay condonation was rightly rejected as 'fantastic' by the Division Bench. The First Impugned Order was set aside, effectively nullifying the Second Impugned Order, though it was not faulted. However, costs of Rs.1,20,000 were imposed on the appellant for wasting judicial time, to be utilized for juvenile welfare, advocate-clerks' welfare, and legal aid as directed. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4920 
