Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The HC quashed reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 initiated via notice u/s 148 issued on July 29, 2022. The Court found that since the reassessment action commenced more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, sanction should have been accorded by the Principal Chief Commissioner rather than the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). This jurisdictional defect rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid, as the PCIT lacked competent authority to sanction the action after the three-year limitation period had elapsed. The Court allowed the writ petition on this procedural ground alone.
The HC quashed reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 initiated via notice u/s 148 issued on July 29, 2022. The Court found that since the reassessment action commenced more than three years after the end of the relevant assessment year, sanction should have been accorded by the Principal Chief Commissioner rather than the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT). This jurisdictional defect rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid, as the PCIT lacked competent authority to sanction the action after the three-year limitation period had elapsed. The Court allowed the writ petition on this procedural ground alone.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.