Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
Reopening of assessment depends on prior approval from the authority specified for the applicable time-bar category; where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval required from the higher authority under the substituted scheme. The High Court found approval was obtained from the lower specified authority instead of the required higher authority, rendering the s.148 notice, the s.148A(d) order and consequent reassessment and penalty proceedings jurisdictionally invalid. The HC quashed and set aside the notice, the reassessment order and the penalty notice, deciding in favour of the assessee.
Reopening of assessment depends on prior approval from the authority specified for the applicable time-bar category; where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval required from the higher authority under the substituted scheme. The High Court found approval was obtained from the lower specified authority instead of the required higher authority, rendering the s.148 notice, the s.148A(d) order and consequent reassessment and penalty proceedings jurisdictionally invalid. The HC quashed and set aside the notice, the reassessment order and the penalty notice, deciding in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.