Section 7 admission requires established financial debt and default, not precise interest quantification, while post-suspension defaults remain action...
Belated Form 10B filing during Covid-19 cannot defeat charitable exemption where genuine hardship warrants condonation and substantial justice prevail...
Reassessment notice issued after three years was held barred by limitation because the factual foundation was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank statements showed cash deposits of only Rs. 19,50,000 in the two IDBI Bank accounts, not the higher aggregate assumed by the AO. It held that the validity of notice under section 148 must be tested on the correct facts, and an otherwise time-barred notice cannot be sustained by relying on erroneous figures in the section 148A(b) notice, the section 148A(d) order, or the section 148 notice itself. The reassessment order was therefore also vitiated.
Reassessment notice issued after three years was held barred by limitation because the factual foundation was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank statements showed cash deposits of only Rs. 19,50,000 in the two IDBI Bank accounts, not the higher aggregate assumed by the AO. It held that the validity of notice under section 148 must be tested on the correct facts, and an otherwise time-barred notice cannot be sustained by relying on erroneous figures in the section 148A(b) notice, the section 148A(d) order, or the section 148 notice itself. The reassessment order was therefore also vitiated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
