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 ITAT held that the intimation under section 143(1) issued on 30.03.2019 was invalid as it was passed before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period provided to the assessee for submitting a response, which ended on 22.04.2019. The purported response date of 23.03.2019 was found to be incorrect and inconsistent with the record. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the intimation was bad in law for non-compliance with the statutory procedural requirement. As a result, the disallowance made by the AO pursuant to the impugned intimation was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that the intimation under section 143(1) issued on 30.03.2019 was invalid as it was passed before the expiry of the mandatory 30-day period provided to the assessee for submitting a response, which ended on 22.04.2019. The purported response date of 23.03.2019 was found to be incorrect and inconsistent with the record. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the intimation was bad in law for non-compliance with the statutory procedural requirement. As a result, the disallowance made by the AO pursuant to the impugned intimation was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
