NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Assessment jurisdiction under the search-assessment proviso was...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based additions.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Assessment jurisdiction under the search-assessment proviso was held invalid where seized material did not demonstrably show escaped income represented as an asset, so the proviso could not be invoked for a completed earlier year. References to a Valuation Officer to estimate builder construction expenditure were outside the statutory scope as those costs were revenue/stock-in-trade and no prima facie material under parallel unexplained income provisions existed. Valuation reports issued or served after the mandatory six-month period were treated as time-barred and inadmissible. Retracted confessional statements not confronted and without cross-examination were excluded; unsecured loan proof discharged the initial onus and the additions were deleted.
Assessment jurisdiction under the search-assessment proviso was held invalid where seized material did not demonstrably show escaped income represented as an asset, so the proviso could not be invoked for a completed earlier year. References to a Valuation Officer to estimate builder construction expenditure were outside the statutory scope as those costs were revenue/stock-in-trade and no prima facie material under parallel unexplained income provisions existed. Valuation reports issued or served after the mandatory six-month period were treated as time-barred and inadmissible. Retracted confessional statements not confronted and without cross-examination were excluded; unsecured loan proof discharged the initial onus and the additions were deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.