Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Reopening under Section 148 based on search material requires prima facie evidence showing a live link between the seized document and the assessee; the expressions "pertains to" and "relates to" cannot be read in vacuum. Here, the loose paper predated the assessee's purchase by nearly two years, did not name him, and the broker's statement did not refer to him or establish any connection with the named broker. The alleged on-money inference rested only on external matching of survey details, which was too vague and disconnected to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold. The writ petition was allowed and the reopening notices were quashed.
Reopening under Section 148 based on search material requires prima facie evidence showing a live link between the seized document and the assessee; the expressions "pertains to" and "relates to" cannot be read in vacuum. Here, the loose paper predated the assessee's purchase by nearly two years, did not name him, and the broker's statement did not refer to him or establish any connection with the named broker. The alleged on-money inference rested only on external matching of survey details, which was too vague and disconnected to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold. The writ petition was allowed and the reopening notices were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.