Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
The High Court held that an officer who had earlier issued audit observations could not thereafter pass the ex parte assessment order on the same matter. As the impugned adjudication orders were made by those very officers, the Court found the assessment to be without proper jurisdiction and quashed both the adjudication orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, including bank attachment. The matter was remitted to a proper officer for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.
The High Court held that an officer who had earlier issued audit observations could not thereafter pass the ex parte assessment order on the same matter. As the impugned adjudication orders were made by those very officers, the Court found the assessment to be without proper jurisdiction and quashed both the adjudication orders and the consequential recovery proceedings, including bank attachment. The matter was remitted to a proper officer for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show-cause notices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
