Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the AO possessed sufficient material to initiate reassessment proceedings under s.148 read with s.148A(1) and to frame an order under s.143A(3); the impugned action was taken pursuant to information generated under the CBDT's Risk Management Strategy recognised by s.148(3)(i). The court rejected the AO's inference that liquidation of a counterparty (hereinafter "Entity X") amounted to proof of a bogus concern, noting that subsequent acquisition of Entity X evidenced commercial legitimacy and that liquidation alone cannot justify a presumption of sham transactions. It was also noted that no complaint of denial of hearing under s.148A(1) was made.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the AO possessed sufficient material to initiate reassessment proceedings under s.148 read with s.148A(1) and to frame an order under s.143A(3); the impugned action was taken pursuant to information generated under the CBDT's Risk Management Strategy recognised by s.148(3)(i). The court rejected the AO's inference that liquidation of a counterparty (hereinafter "Entity X") amounted to proof of a bogus concern, noting that subsequent acquisition of Entity X evidenced commercial legitimacy and that liquidation alone cannot justify a presumption of sham transactions. It was also noted that no complaint of denial of hearing under s.148A(1) was made.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
