Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
