Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
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...
The HC held that the Assessing Officer's (AO) reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. The AO's notice under Section 148A(d) exceeded the scope of original information, which suggested potential escaped income. The Assessee provided satisfactory explanations regarding TCS collection, cash deposits during demonetization, and time deposits. The court found no substantive evidence to support the reopening of assessment, thus setting aside the impugned notice and order. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness and the need for precise jurisdictional basis when reassessing tax liabilities.
The HC held that the Assessing Officer's (AO) reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. The AO's notice under Section 148A(d) exceeded the scope of original information, which suggested potential escaped income. The Assessee provided satisfactory explanations regarding TCS collection, cash deposits during demonetization, and time deposits. The court found no substantive evidence to support the reopening of assessment, thus setting aside the impugned notice and order. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness and the need for precise jurisdictional basis when reassessing tax liabilities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.