Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Reassessment beyond three years under section 149(1)(b) was unavailable because the Assessing Officer did not possess material showing escapement of income represented in the form of an asset of fifty lakh rupees or more. The order under section 148A(d) was found non-speaking, as it failed to explain why the housing loan sanction letter, bank statements and other supporting documents were unacceptable; the property purchase was substantially explained by the loan, and any remaining unexplained amount stayed below the statutory threshold. The notice under section 148 was therefore barred by limitation, the reopening was treated as a roving and fishing enquiry, and the section 148A(d) order, notice under section 148, and consequential assessment under section 147 were quashed.
Reassessment beyond three years under section 149(1)(b) was unavailable because the Assessing Officer did not possess material showing escapement of income represented in the form of an asset of fifty lakh rupees or more. The order under section 148A(d) was found non-speaking, as it failed to explain why the housing loan sanction letter, bank statements and other supporting documents were unacceptable; the property purchase was substantially explained by the loan, and any remaining unexplained amount stayed below the statutory threshold. The notice under section 148 was therefore barred by limitation, the reopening was treated as a roving and fishing enquiry, and the section 148A(d) order, notice under section 148, and consequential assessment under section 147 were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
