Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal against the reopening of assessment u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had alleged that the assessee had undeclared capital gains of more than Rs. 50 lakhs from the sale of immovable properties worth Rs. 1.33 crores. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had merely sold an immovable property for Rs. 43 lakhs and invested the proceeds in purchasing another property worth Rs. 90 lakhs, resulting in an addition of only Rs. 47 lakhs. The Tribunal held that it was not a case of capital gains of Rs. 1.33 crores escaping assessment, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The reopening was deemed mechanical and lacking merit, as the Assessing Officer failed to differentiate between the two separate information sources and cumulatively considered them as escaped capital gains exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal against the reopening of assessment u/s 148A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had alleged that the assessee had undeclared capital gains of more than Rs. 50 lakhs from the sale of immovable properties worth Rs. 1.33 crores. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had merely sold an immovable property for Rs. 43 lakhs and invested the proceeds in purchasing another property worth Rs. 90 lakhs, resulting in an addition of only Rs. 47 lakhs. The Tribunal held that it was not a case of capital gains of Rs. 1.33 crores escaping assessment, as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The reopening was deemed mechanical and lacking merit, as the Assessing Officer failed to differentiate between the two separate information sources and cumulatively considered them as escaped capital gains exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
