Capital Asset Conversion Requires Proven Business Stock Treatment; Paper Consideration in Spousal Flat Transfers Does Not Create Taxable Business Inco...
Human-probability test defeats political donation deduction where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering and evidence shows non-genuin...
Commercial property status protects capital-gains exemption when residential-house ownership limits are tested, while agricultural-land character gove...
Investigation deposits refunded after failed customs demands fall outside the statutory appellate pre-deposit interest regime and may attract compensa...
Resolution plan finality extinguishes unquantified operational-creditor claims and pending proceedings unless the approved plan expressly preserves th...
Page of 4897
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 97923 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of assessment u/s 153C and notices issued u/s 153B of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the starting point of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153B is the date when the seized books of account, documents, or assets were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person. The previous notices issued to the four transferor companies were void and irrelevant. The limitation period commenced from the date when the incriminating material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, even if time was consumed in centralizing the material. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and notices issued by the Department.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of assessment u/s 153C and notices issued u/s 153B of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the starting point of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153B is the date when the seized books of account, documents, or assets were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person. The previous notices issued to the four transferor companies were void and irrelevant. The limitation period commenced from the date when the incriminating material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, even if time was consumed in centralizing the material. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and notices issued by the Department.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4897 
