Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Reopening of assessment concerned unexplained payment and alleged difference between stamp duty value and consideration under valuation provisions; appellate note records that the assessee, a non-resident, failed to substantiate a Rs.7,00,000 payment and was not questioned on the valuation difference. The appellate authority found the first appellate order disposed for nonprosecution without merits and the assessing officer did not verify payment dates or bank records. The tribunal directed restoration to the assessing officer for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate source of funds and to explain the stamp duty versus registration value (difference found less than 10%). Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Reopening of assessment concerned unexplained payment and alleged difference between stamp duty value and consideration under valuation provisions; appellate note records that the assessee, a non-resident, failed to substantiate a Rs.7,00,000 payment and was not questioned on the valuation difference. The appellate authority found the first appellate order disposed for nonprosecution without merits and the assessing officer did not verify payment dates or bank records. The tribunal directed restoration to the assessing officer for a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate source of funds and to explain the stamp duty versus registration value (difference found less than 10%). Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
