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...
Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained because no satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that where the returned income was accepted and no quantum addition was made, there was no occasion in the assessment order to record the requisite satisfaction, and the Assessing Officer could not validly proceed by issuing a separate show-cause notice and penalty order. Relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal treated the absence of recorded satisfaction as fatal to jurisdiction and allowed the assessee's appeal without examining the merits.
Penalty under section 271D could not be sustained because no satisfaction was recorded in the assessment order initiating penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that where the returned income was accepted and no quantum addition was made, there was no occasion in the assessment order to record the requisite satisfaction, and the Assessing Officer could not validly proceed by issuing a separate show-cause notice and penalty order. Relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal treated the absence of recorded satisfaction as fatal to jurisdiction and allowed the assessee's appeal without examining the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.