Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
The Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not satisfy the condition precedent before issuing a notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act against the appellant, who was a third party not subjected to search. The satisfaction note prepared by the AO did not meet the legal requirements as the seized material did not pertain to or contain anything incriminating against the appellant. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17 was held to be bad in law, rendering the consequent assessment orders null and void. Regarding additions made in the unabated assessment years, the Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions to hold that in unabated assessments u/s 153C, additions are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material existed against the appellant, the additions made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) were directed to be deleted for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17.
The Appellate Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not satisfy the condition precedent before issuing a notice u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act against the appellant, who was a third party not subjected to search. The satisfaction note prepared by the AO did not meet the legal requirements as the seized material did not pertain to or contain anything incriminating against the appellant. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17 was held to be bad in law, rendering the consequent assessment orders null and void. Regarding additions made in the unabated assessment years, the Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions to hold that in unabated assessments u/s 153C, additions are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since no such material existed against the appellant, the additions made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) were directed to be deleted for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.