Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Reassessment initiation was held invalid because the AO repeatedly re-presented a proposal for sanction under s.151 after initial rejection; the Act confers no power of review on either the AO or the sanctioning authority, rendering the subsequent approval and consequent s.148 proceedings without jurisdiction. The recorded "reasons to believe" were also found unsustainable as the loose papers were misread, contained multiple unrelated names/entities, and lacked any corroborative material linking the assessee to alleged illegal gratification or tender awards by an independent government undertaking; thus the foundational jurisdictional facts were absent. The reopening was quashed and relief granted to the assessee. - HC
Reassessment initiation was held invalid because the AO repeatedly re-presented a proposal for sanction under s.151 after initial rejection; the Act confers no power of review on either the AO or the sanctioning authority, rendering the subsequent approval and consequent s.148 proceedings without jurisdiction. The recorded "reasons to believe" were also found unsustainable as the loose papers were misread, contained multiple unrelated names/entities, and lacked any corroborative material linking the assessee to alleged illegal gratification or tender awards by an independent government undertaking; thus the foundational jurisdictional facts were absent. The reopening was quashed and relief granted to the assessee. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.