Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1561 to 1580 of 96363 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.