Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
Rejection of the waiver application under Section 128A(1) could not stand because it was based on an incorrect statutory premise: the authority treated the underlying assessment as one under Section 74, whereas the record showed it had been passed under Section 73 and this was confirmed by the respondent. The Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner. Any dispute about whether the petitioner had made sufficient payment was left open for reconsideration on remand, and the authority was left free to proceed in accordance with law if full payment had not in fact been made.
Rejection of the waiver application under Section 128A(1) could not stand because it was based on an incorrect statutory premise: the authority treated the underlying assessment as one under Section 74, whereas the record showed it had been passed under Section 73 and this was confirmed by the respondent. The Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner. Any dispute about whether the petitioner had made sufficient payment was left open for reconsideration on remand, and the authority was left free to proceed in accordance with law if full payment had not in fact been made.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
