Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Validity of reassessment initiation was challenged on the ground that the order under s.148A(3) and the consequent notice under s.148 were vague and non-speaking, merely referring to a search in the insurance sector without disclosing why income was believed to have escaped assessment. The court held that the s.148A(3) order did not record any reasons for rejecting the assessee's replies or explain the basis for proceeding, rendering it unsustainable; consequently, the s.148A(3) order and the s.148 notice were set aside and the matter was remanded to the AO to pass a fresh, reasoned order after considering the replies, with clarification that the assessee had also asserted incomplete information in the notices. - HC
Validity of reassessment initiation was challenged on the ground that the order under s.148A(3) and the consequent notice under s.148 were vague and non-speaking, merely referring to a search in the insurance sector without disclosing why income was believed to have escaped assessment. The court held that the s.148A(3) order did not record any reasons for rejecting the assessee's replies or explain the basis for proceeding, rendering it unsustainable; consequently, the s.148A(3) order and the s.148 notice were set aside and the matter was remanded to the AO to pass a fresh, reasoned order after considering the replies, with clarification that the assessee had also asserted incomplete information in the notices. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
