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 held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under s.147 and notice issued under s.148 are invalid because the Pr. CIT's approval under s.151(2) was a mechanical, non-application of mind endorsement. Relying on controlling High Court precedent that condemns perfunctory sanctions evidenced by mere recorded satisfaction, the Tribunal found the sanction to reopen was vitiated. Consequentially, the s.148 notice was held bad in law and the consequent reassessment order was quashed. The appeal by the assessee was allowed and the reassessment proceedings set aside.
ITAT held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under s.147 and notice issued under s.148 are invalid because the Pr. CIT's approval under s.151(2) was a mechanical, non-application of mind endorsement. Relying on controlling High Court precedent that condemns perfunctory sanctions evidenced by mere recorded satisfaction, the Tribunal found the sanction to reopen was vitiated. Consequentially, the s.148 notice was held bad in law and the consequent reassessment order was quashed. The appeal by the assessee was allowed and the reassessment proceedings set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
