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 was quashed because the recorded reasons suffered from fundamental defects: no proper approval in the prescribed form, absence of signature on sanction, and material factual errors in the basis for reopening. The assessing officer's later attempt to substitute fresh reasons was not permitted under section 147, and the alternative reasons still rested on suspicion, third-party information about the assessee's husband, and no independent tangible material showing escapement in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held this amounted only to a reason to suspect, not a valid reason to believe. Cross-objections were also rejected as time-barred, since they were filed 27 days late without any condonation request.
Reassessment was quashed because the recorded reasons suffered from fundamental defects: no proper approval in the prescribed form, absence of signature on sanction, and material factual errors in the basis for reopening. The assessing officer's later attempt to substitute fresh reasons was not permitted under section 147, and the alternative reasons still rested on suspicion, third-party information about the assessee's husband, and no independent tangible material showing escapement in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal held this amounted only to a reason to suspect, not a valid reason to believe. Cross-objections were also rejected as time-barred, since they were filed 27 days late without any condonation request.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.