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...
Reopening under ss. 148A(3)/148 was challenged on the ground that the alleged escapement based on stamp duty valuation mismatch and payment routing to a confirming party could not trigger s. 56(2)(x) where the land was held as stock-in-trade. The Court held that s. 56(2)(x) applies only on receipt of a capital asset, whereas the assessee consistently disclosed the land as stock-in-trade in its books. It further held that the AO had already examined stamp duty vis-Ã -vis consideration, ledger entries, agreements, and confirmations from the landowners and the confirming party in the regular assessment, and the payment explanations were not an afterthought. Continuation of reassessment was held to be an abuse of statutory power; the impugned order and notice were quashed. - HC
Reopening under ss. 148A(3)/148 was challenged on the ground that the alleged escapement based on stamp duty valuation mismatch and payment routing to a confirming party could not trigger s. 56(2)(x) where the land was held as stock-in-trade. The Court held that s. 56(2)(x) applies only on receipt of a capital asset, whereas the assessee consistently disclosed the land as stock-in-trade in its books. It further held that the AO had already examined stamp duty vis-Ã -vis consideration, ledger entries, agreements, and confirmations from the landowners and the confirming party in the regular assessment, and the payment explanations were not an afterthought. Continuation of reassessment was held to be an abuse of statutory power; the impugned order and notice were quashed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
