Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
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 4826 
Join Channel 
