Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment for AY 2017-18 was held within limitation because the earlier notice issued on 29.04.2021 was treated as a deemed notice under section 148A(b) in light of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The Court held that the saving of defences under section 149 did not help the assessee, as the notice remained issuable under the old regime up to 31.03.2024 where escaped income crossed the applicable threshold. It further held that alleged escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs and represented as immovable property attracted the extended ten-year period. The challenge to the order under section 148A(d), the consequential notice under section 148, and the assessment order on limitation grounds was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.
Reassessment for AY 2017-18 was held within limitation because the earlier notice issued on 29.04.2021 was treated as a deemed notice under section 148A(b) in light of Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal and Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The Court held that the saving of defences under section 149 did not help the assessee, as the notice remained issuable under the old regime up to 31.03.2024 where escaped income crossed the applicable threshold. It further held that alleged escaped income exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs and represented as immovable property attracted the extended ten-year period. The challenge to the order under section 148A(d), the consequential notice under section 148, and the assessment order on limitation grounds was rejected and the writ petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.