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...
Assessment proceedings u/s 153C - The period of limitation and deemed date for possession of seized documents were discussed. It was held that the date of recording satisfaction would be the deemed date for possession of seized documents, which was 03-10-2022, and six years would be reckoned from this date. The submission made by the Authorized Representative was tenable, and the relevant assessment year for the previous year in which the search was conducted would be AY 2023-24, with six immediately preceding assessment years being AY 2018-19 to 2022-23. The assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been carried out by issuing notice u/s 153C and not Section 143(2). The case was covered by the Akanksha Gupta case, and the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Assessment proceedings u/s 153C - The period of limitation and deemed date for possession of seized documents were discussed. It was held that the date of recording satisfaction would be the deemed date for possession of seized documents, which was 03-10-2022, and six years would be reckoned from this date. The submission made by the Authorized Representative was tenable, and the relevant assessment year for the previous year in which the search was conducted would be AY 2023-24, with six immediately preceding assessment years being AY 2018-19 to 2022-23. The assessment for AY 2021-22 should have been carried out by issuing notice u/s 153C and not Section 143(2). The case was covered by the Akanksha Gupta case, and the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was held to be bad in law and liable to be quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
