Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
Where an attached residential property remained in the applicant's self-occupation, the Tribunal applied Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary to hold that taking physical possession before confiscation is exceptional, not routine. As no exceptional circumstance was shown and the Directorate did not establish any basis to displace the occupant, the applicant could retain possession and no notional rent could be demanded for the self-occupied property. The Tribunal also noted that the pending modification application had not been adjudicated earlier. The rights of mortgagee banks and secured creditors to proceed in accordance with law were left unaffected.
Where an attached residential property remained in the applicant's self-occupation, the Tribunal applied Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary to hold that taking physical possession before confiscation is exceptional, not routine. As no exceptional circumstance was shown and the Directorate did not establish any basis to displace the occupant, the applicant could retain possession and no notional rent could be demanded for the self-occupied property. The Tribunal also noted that the pending modification application had not been adjudicated earlier. The rights of mortgagee banks and secured creditors to proceed in accordance with law were left unaffected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.