Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5861 to 5880 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Sanction for reopening was held invalid where the competent authority merely affixed rubber-stamp endorsements such as "Yes I am satisfied" without showing independent application of mind. The Tribunal treated the approval requirement under section 151 as a substantive safeguard, and applied the principles in S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical and Pioneer Town Planners to hold that mechanical sanction cannot validate reassessment. As the notices under section 148 were issued on the basis of such defective approval, they were bad in law and the consequential reassessment orders for the relevant assessment years were quashed.
Sanction for reopening was held invalid where the competent authority merely affixed rubber-stamp endorsements such as "Yes I am satisfied" without showing independent application of mind. The Tribunal treated the approval requirement under section 151 as a substantive safeguard, and applied the principles in S. Goyanka Lime & Chemical and Pioneer Town Planners to hold that mechanical sanction cannot validate reassessment. As the notices under section 148 were issued on the basis of such defective approval, they were bad in law and the consequential reassessment orders for the relevant assessment years were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.