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 High Court held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 did not violate the provisions of Section 148A. The respondents provided the petitioners an opportunity of being heard as specified in the order. The court found that the impugned orders mentioned the non-genuine accommodation entries made by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta through various firms controlled by him, including M/s Kalki Trading Company and M/s Swastik Traders. The petitioners admitted transactions with these firms, involving the purchase and sale of commodities on the same day, indicating paper transactions. The court opined that the impugned orders u/s 148A(d) did not violate Section 148A, and the transactions being bogus, the petitioners' contentions regarding sale and not purchase lost their effect. The impugned orders did not fall within the exceptions settled by the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee case.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 did not violate the provisions of Section 148A. The respondents provided the petitioners an opportunity of being heard as specified in the order. The court found that the impugned orders mentioned the non-genuine accommodation entries made by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta through various firms controlled by him, including M/s Kalki Trading Company and M/s Swastik Traders. The petitioners admitted transactions with these firms, involving the purchase and sale of commodities on the same day, indicating paper transactions. The court opined that the impugned orders u/s 148A(d) did not violate Section 148A, and the transactions being bogus, the petitioners' contentions regarding sale and not purchase lost their effect. The impugned orders did not fall within the exceptions settled by the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
