Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1601 to 1620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT upheld reassessment jurisdiction under the post-1.4.2021 search regime, holding that incriminating material is not a condition precedent for issuing notice under section 148 and that such material is to be examined in the reassessment proceedings; the challenge to the notice therefore failed. On merits, it deleted the section 68 and consequential section 69C additions on sale of investments, finding that the investments were earlier accepted in audited balance sheets and scrutiny, sale proceeds were received through banking channels from identified purchasers, and the additions rested mainly on uncorroborated third-party statements and seized material without cross-examination.
The ITAT upheld reassessment jurisdiction under the post-1.4.2021 search regime, holding that incriminating material is not a condition precedent for issuing notice under section 148 and that such material is to be examined in the reassessment proceedings; the challenge to the notice therefore failed. On merits, it deleted the section 68 and consequential section 69C additions on sale of investments, finding that the investments were earlier accepted in audited balance sheets and scrutiny, sale proceeds were received through banking channels from identified purchasers, and the additions rested mainly on uncorroborated third-party statements and seized material without cross-examination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.