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...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The ITAT held that the notice issued under section 153C for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, as the limitation period must be reckoned from the date of recording the satisfaction note (10.06.2021) and not the date of search (20.07.2018). Consequently, proceedings for AY 2015-16 were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Further, the tribunal found the satisfaction note to be cryptic and lacking tangible, descriptive information, failing to demonstrate proper application of mind by the AO. This legal infirmity rendered the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C invalid. The AO's failure to specify documents or assets pertaining to each assessment year in the consolidated satisfaction note vitiated the notice and assessment order. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the proceedings and assessment under section 153C were quashed as null and void.
The ITAT held that the notice issued under section 153C for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, as the limitation period must be reckoned from the date of recording the satisfaction note (10.06.2021) and not the date of search (20.07.2018). Consequently, proceedings for AY 2015-16 were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Further, the tribunal found the satisfaction note to be cryptic and lacking tangible, descriptive information, failing to demonstrate proper application of mind by the AO. This legal infirmity rendered the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C invalid. The AO's failure to specify documents or assets pertaining to each assessment year in the consolidated satisfaction note vitiated the notice and assessment order. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the proceedings and assessment under section 153C were quashed as null and void.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
