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 HC held that the second notice issued u/s 148A(b) was a standalone notice, not a continuation of the first notice. The information on which the notices were based was completely different. As the second standalone notice was issued beyond the 3-year period stipulated u/s 149(1)(a) for reopening assessment where escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, it was barred by limitation. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148A(b), deciding in favor of the assessee.
The HC held that the second notice issued u/s 148A(b) was a standalone notice, not a continuation of the first notice. The information on which the notices were based was completely different. As the second standalone notice was issued beyond the 3-year period stipulated u/s 149(1)(a) for reopening assessment where escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, it was barred by limitation. Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148A(b), deciding in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
