Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
Filing of Form 1 under IDS 2016, coupled with non-payment of tax/surcharge/penalty, was held to constitute fresh tangible material for A.Y. 2017-18 under s.197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016, so reopening could not be assailed for lack of material. However, reassessment was quashed because the notice u/s 148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless AO, rendering the notice void. Separately, for a notice issued beyond three years, sanction ought to have been obtained from the specified authority u/s 151(ii); approval from PCIT was held incompetent, vitiating jurisdiction. On merits, in absence of proved service of Form 2, s.197(b) could not be invoked and the s.69A addition was deleted; consequential s.271AAC penalty failed. - ITAT
Filing of Form 1 under IDS 2016, coupled with non-payment of tax/surcharge/penalty, was held to constitute fresh tangible material for A.Y. 2017-18 under s.197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016, so reopening could not be assailed for lack of material. However, reassessment was quashed because the notice u/s 148 was issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of the faceless AO, rendering the notice void. Separately, for a notice issued beyond three years, sanction ought to have been obtained from the specified authority u/s 151(ii); approval from PCIT was held incompetent, vitiating jurisdiction. On merits, in absence of proved service of Form 2, s.197(b) could not be invoked and the s.69A addition was deleted; consequential s.271AAC penalty failed. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.