Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
