Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
