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 notices issued under section 148 and section 148A(b) by the jurisdictional assessing officer, instead of the faceless assessing officer, are invalid and set aside; consequent reassessment orders premised on such notices are quashed. The Tribunal further determined that where the assessing officer, in reassessment proceedings, made no addition on the very issue forming the basis for reopening, the officer lacked jurisdiction to make other additions, rendering the reassessment void. Parties were granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal should controlling decisions of higher courts on the faceless-notice issue necessitate modification of this order.
ITAT held that notices issued under section 148 and section 148A(b) by the jurisdictional assessing officer, instead of the faceless assessing officer, are invalid and set aside; consequent reassessment orders premised on such notices are quashed. The Tribunal further determined that where the assessing officer, in reassessment proceedings, made no addition on the very issue forming the basis for reopening, the officer lacked jurisdiction to make other additions, rendering the reassessment void. Parties were granted liberty to seek revival of the appeal should controlling decisions of higher courts on the faceless-notice issue necessitate modification of this order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.