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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For reopening beyond three years, the statutory threshold under section 149(1)(b) must be met by material showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. The Tribunal held that the reopening was initiated on incorrect or non-existing portal information, because the assessment ultimately treated only Rs. 17,17,597 as unexplained after verification and explanation by the assessee. As the case did not satisfy the extended-limitation condition, it fell within section 149(1)(a) and the notice under section 148 issued beyond three years was invalid. The consequential reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B was quashed as void ab initio.
For reopening beyond three years, the statutory threshold under section 149(1)(b) must be met by material showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. The Tribunal held that the reopening was initiated on incorrect or non-existing portal information, because the assessment ultimately treated only Rs. 17,17,597 as unexplained after verification and explanation by the assessee. As the case did not satisfy the extended-limitation condition, it fell within section 149(1)(a) and the notice under section 148 issued beyond three years was invalid. The consequential reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B was quashed as void ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.