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...
Faceless assessment scheme does not absorb the statutory preliminary inquiry procedure for reopening; the scheme's plain language excludes that inquiry process, so a notice to reopen may validly be issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer where the requisite inquiry and order were made by that officer. Reading the faceless scheme to incorporate the preliminary inquiry would alter the scheme and render issuance by a faceless officer meaningless. Conflicting views from other High Courts were noted, but the conclusion here is that automated allocation may trigger notice issuance while reassessment proceedings may proceed facelessly; notices issued by jurisdictional officers after April 2022 are upheld as valid.
Faceless assessment scheme does not absorb the statutory preliminary inquiry procedure for reopening; the scheme's plain language excludes that inquiry process, so a notice to reopen may validly be issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer where the requisite inquiry and order were made by that officer. Reading the faceless scheme to incorporate the preliminary inquiry would alter the scheme and render issuance by a faceless officer meaningless. Conflicting views from other High Courts were noted, but the conclusion here is that automated allocation may trigger notice issuance while reassessment proceedings may proceed facelessly; notices issued by jurisdictional officers after April 2022 are upheld as valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
