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...
The ITAT held that the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction was invalid. The addition u/s 69A for unexplained investment/credit was unsustainable as the assessee failed to furnish the same before the lower authorities. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on irrelevant facts could not be sustained after rejection by the DRP and allegations of mechanical passing without application of mind. Relying on the Excel Commodity Derivative case, the ITAT ruled that the term 'information' under Explanation 1 of Section 148 cannot be used lightly for reopening assessments. The AO had erroneously issued notice and made additions on fresh grounds after considering the assessee's submissions. The ITAT held that the impugned orders were illegal and unsustainable, aligning with the Akshar Builders & Developers and Paranjape Schemes cases, which reprimanded mechanical reassessments based on erroneous information and non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the draft and final assessment orders and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT held that the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction was invalid. The addition u/s 69A for unexplained investment/credit was unsustainable as the assessee failed to furnish the same before the lower authorities. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on irrelevant facts could not be sustained after rejection by the DRP and allegations of mechanical passing without application of mind. Relying on the Excel Commodity Derivative case, the ITAT ruled that the term 'information' under Explanation 1 of Section 148 cannot be used lightly for reopening assessments. The AO had erroneously issued notice and made additions on fresh grounds after considering the assessee's submissions. The ITAT held that the impugned orders were illegal and unsustainable, aligning with the Akshar Builders & Developers and Paranjape Schemes cases, which reprimanded mechanical reassessments based on erroneous information and non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the draft and final assessment orders and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
