Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7381 to 7400 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that, consequent to search u/s 132, the AO was mandatorily required to proceed under the special reassessment regime u/s 147/148 (read with Expl. 2(iv) to s.148) with prior approval u/s 148B, and could not validly complete the pending scrutiny u/s 143(3). The approval purportedly granted u/s 153D was found to be mechanical and without proper application of mind, vitiating the assessment for lack of jurisdiction. The impugned assessment order was therefore declared void and annulled. On merits, in the alternative, ITAT upheld addition towards unexplained opening balance and 20% of unmatched seized entries, but directed recomputation of trading addition by applying a 14% gross profit rate instead of 14.12%/23.85%, to operate only if the jurisdictional defect is overturned by a higher forum.
ITAT held that, consequent to search u/s 132, the AO was mandatorily required to proceed under the special reassessment regime u/s 147/148 (read with Expl. 2(iv) to s.148) with prior approval u/s 148B, and could not validly complete the pending scrutiny u/s 143(3). The approval purportedly granted u/s 153D was found to be mechanical and without proper application of mind, vitiating the assessment for lack of jurisdiction. The impugned assessment order was therefore declared void and annulled. On merits, in the alternative, ITAT upheld addition towards unexplained opening balance and 20% of unmatched seized entries, but directed recomputation of trading addition by applying a 14% gross profit rate instead of 14.12%/23.85%, to operate only if the jurisdictional defect is overturned by a higher forum.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.