Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Once a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148, issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory statutory requirement; non-issuance is not a curable defect. The Tribunal held that the return could not be treated as non est merely because it was filed beyond the period mentioned in the reassessment notice, and read the amended provision harmoniously with the CBDT e-verification clarifications. Since no section 143(2) notice was issued after the return was filed, the reassessment was held bad in law, void ab initio, and quashed; the remaining grounds were left open.
Once a return is filed in response to a notice under section 148, issuance of notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory statutory requirement; non-issuance is not a curable defect. The Tribunal held that the return could not be treated as non est merely because it was filed beyond the period mentioned in the reassessment notice, and read the amended provision harmoniously with the CBDT e-verification clarifications. Since no section 143(2) notice was issued after the return was filed, the reassessment was held bad in law, void ab initio, and quashed; the remaining grounds were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.