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...
ITAT adjudicated a tax assessment dispute regarding time-barred order limitations. The tribunal determined that the Assessment Officer's (AO) final assessment order passed on 24.08.2022 was beyond statutory limitation under section 144C(13), referencing Madras HC precedent which emphasized that limitation periods cannot be manipulated through internal procedural variations. The tribunal held that since DRP directions were received on 30.06.2022 at 9:53 p.m., the subsequent assessment order exceeded permissible timelines. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, declaring the additions in the assessment order void ab initio and directing their deletion.
ITAT adjudicated a tax assessment dispute regarding time-barred order limitations. The tribunal determined that the Assessment Officer's (AO) final assessment order passed on 24.08.2022 was beyond statutory limitation under section 144C(13), referencing Madras HC precedent which emphasized that limitation periods cannot be manipulated through internal procedural variations. The tribunal held that since DRP directions were received on 30.06.2022 at 9:53 p.m., the subsequent assessment order exceeded permissible timelines. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, declaring the additions in the assessment order void ab initio and directing their deletion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.