Limitation period commencement and procedural inquiry rules: identity-based limitation upheld; complaints by authorised public servants need not attra...
Pre-trial bail granted where custodial period, documentary prosecution, and magistrate-triable offence favor release subject to surety and no witness ...
Allowability of Salary Exemptions: Form 16 entries can substantiate HRA and other salary exemptions, and home loan interest is deductible for a self-o...
Validity of reopening under section 147/148 is contested on the ground that the sanction required from the competent authority was not obtained; the notice issued in AY 2015-16 on 28 March 2021 falls within the temporal ratio of the cited Supreme Court authority, but was quashed because the sanction stated on the notice was from the CIT (Exemption) rather than the Joint Commissioner mandated by law, and Revenue cannot contradict the express language of the notice regarding whose satisfaction was obtained. The necessity for sanction by the specific authority is determinative, leading to invalidation of the notice.
Validity of reopening under section 147/148 is contested on the ground that the sanction required from the competent authority was not obtained; the notice issued in AY 2015-16 on 28 March 2021 falls within the temporal ratio of the cited Supreme Court authority, but was quashed because the sanction stated on the notice was from the CIT (Exemption) rather than the Joint Commissioner mandated by law, and Revenue cannot contradict the express language of the notice regarding whose satisfaction was obtained. The necessity for sanction by the specific authority is determinative, leading to invalidation of the notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.