Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
Reopening an income-tax assessment for the identical bank-deposit transaction already investigated and finally adjudicated is impermissible where the subsequent authority relies on the same material; the doctrine Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa bars subjecting the assessee to duplicate adjudication. The court reiterates that a notice under section 148 requires "reasons to believe" grounded in tangible material with a nexus to escaped income and cannot be based on mere suspicion or a change of opinion. The reassessment attempt was self conflicting and set aside; the writ petition was allowed, preventing a second assessment on the same subject matter.
Reopening an income-tax assessment for the identical bank-deposit transaction already investigated and finally adjudicated is impermissible where the subsequent authority relies on the same material; the doctrine Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa bars subjecting the assessee to duplicate adjudication. The court reiterates that a notice under section 148 requires "reasons to believe" grounded in tangible material with a nexus to escaped income and cannot be based on mere suspicion or a change of opinion. The reassessment attempt was self conflicting and set aside; the writ petition was allowed, preventing a second assessment on the same subject matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.