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...
Reassessment validity depended on two jurisdictional defects: the sanction under section 151 was held invalid because the escapement figure shifted from Rs. 1,11,37,000 to Rs. 66,13,961 and then to Rs. 27,00,000, showing non-application of mind at the sanction stage. The Tribunal also held that reopening beyond three years was unsustainable because the surviving alleged escapement was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended limitation under section 149(1). On these grounds, the reassessment was held untenable and the remaining issues were left open.
Reassessment validity depended on two jurisdictional defects: the sanction under section 151 was held invalid because the escapement figure shifted from Rs. 1,11,37,000 to Rs. 66,13,961 and then to Rs. 27,00,000, showing non-application of mind at the sanction stage. The Tribunal also held that reopening beyond three years was unsustainable because the surviving alleged escapement was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended limitation under section 149(1). On these grounds, the reassessment was held untenable and the remaining issues were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.