Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Under the amended reassessment regime, the High Court held that capital gains from the property transfer had to be computed with the stamp duty valuation under Sections 148, 149, 50C and 48. Because the petitioner's one-fourth share, valued on that basis, exceeded the statutory threshold of fifty lakh rupees, the extended limitation period applied and the Section 148A(d) order and consequential Section 148 notice were not without jurisdiction. The Court also held that the complaint that the written reply was not considered did not alter the result once limitation was decided against the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed and assessment was directed to proceed, excluding the period spent before the Court for limitation purposes.
Under the amended reassessment regime, the High Court held that capital gains from the property transfer had to be computed with the stamp duty valuation under Sections 148, 149, 50C and 48. Because the petitioner's one-fourth share, valued on that basis, exceeded the statutory threshold of fifty lakh rupees, the extended limitation period applied and the Section 148A(d) order and consequential Section 148 notice were not without jurisdiction. The Court also held that the complaint that the written reply was not considered did not alter the result once limitation was decided against the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed and assessment was directed to proceed, excluding the period spent before the Court for limitation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
