Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3041 to 3060 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT allowed the appeal of Assessee X, holding the reassessment proceedings under s.147 invalid due to improper sanction under the new s.151 regime. The notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d), issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year, required prior approval from higher specified authorities (PCCI/PDGIT/CCIT/DGIT), but were instead sanctioned by the PCIT, contrary to the amended statutory hierarchy. Relying on binding precedents of the SC and the jurisdictional HC, and holding that TOLA only extended limitation and did not alter the approval structure under s.151, the ITAT quashed the notice u/s 148 and consequently annulled the reassessment order. The assessee's appeal was allowed in full.
The ITAT allowed the appeal of Assessee X, holding the reassessment proceedings under s.147 invalid due to improper sanction under the new s.151 regime. The notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d), issued beyond three years from the relevant assessment year, required prior approval from higher specified authorities (PCCI/PDGIT/CCIT/DGIT), but were instead sanctioned by the PCIT, contrary to the amended statutory hierarchy. Relying on binding precedents of the SC and the jurisdictional HC, and holding that TOLA only extended limitation and did not alter the approval structure under s.151, the ITAT quashed the notice u/s 148 and consequently annulled the reassessment order. The assessee's appeal was allowed in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
