Consultancy fees claimed as business expense-can tax disallowance rest on survey suspicion despite invoices, contracts and bank trail? Appeal dismisse...
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
