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...
The issue concerns whether an Assessing Officer may rely on a Valuation Officer (DVO) report delivered after the six month deadline in section 142A(6) to invoke the exclusion period under Explanation 1(v) to section 153 and thereby extend limitation. The HC agreed with the Tribunal that section 142A(6) requires the report within six months and that the exclusion-period and its proviso apply only where the report falls within that regime; a belated DVO report has no legal value to extend limitation, and the Principal Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment under revision powers. Revenue appeal dismissed.
The issue concerns whether an Assessing Officer may rely on a Valuation Officer (DVO) report delivered after the six month deadline in section 142A(6) to invoke the exclusion period under Explanation 1(v) to section 153 and thereby extend limitation. The HC agreed with the Tribunal that section 142A(6) requires the report within six months and that the exclusion-period and its proviso apply only where the report falls within that regime; a belated DVO report has no legal value to extend limitation, and the Principal Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment under revision powers. Revenue appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.