Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95715 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 approval granted u/s 151 for reopening the assessment u/s 147 was invalid. The satisfaction arrived at by the concerned officer should be discernible from the sanction order, but the approval order lacked any reasoning or material that weighed for granting approval. Mere appending the expression "Yes I am satisfied" without any indication of examining the material or thought process is insufficient. The exercise appeared ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. Reasons are the link between material and conclusion, but no such material was present to conclude that the approving authority considered the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer. Mere repetition of statutory words or rubber-stamping the letter seeking sanction does not satisfy the legal requirement. The approving authority failed to record concurrence satisfactorily, and the use of "Yes, I am satisfied" cannot be considered a valid approval as it does not reflect an independent application of mind. The grant of approval in such a manner is flawed in law. Consequently, the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for issuing notice u/s 148 was held invalid, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The court held that the approval granted u/s 151 for reopening the assessment u/s 147 was invalid. The satisfaction arrived at by the concerned officer should be discernible from the sanction order, but the approval order lacked any reasoning or material that weighed for granting approval. Mere appending the expression "Yes I am satisfied" without any indication of examining the material or thought process is insufficient. The exercise appeared ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful. Reasons are the link between material and conclusion, but no such material was present to conclude that the approving authority considered the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer. Mere repetition of statutory words or rubber-stamping the letter seeking sanction does not satisfy the legal requirement. The approving authority failed to record concurrence satisfactorily, and the use of "Yes, I am satisfied" cannot be considered a valid approval as it does not reflect an independent application of mind. The grant of approval in such a manner is flawed in law. Consequently, the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for issuing notice u/s 148 was held invalid, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.