https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463633 The HC held that although the petitioner replied to the Section 142(1) notice, a second reply was slightly delayed and the petitioner failed to file submissions by the deadline-allegedly due to portal inaccessibility-leaving unaddressed its contention that proceeds were capital gains, not business income. The impugned assessment order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with the petitioner put on terms to pay Rs.10,000 as a condition of reconsideration. en-us Wed, 07 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:02:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463633 The HC held that although the petitioner replied to the Section 142(1) notice, a second reply was slightly delayed and the petitioner failed to file submissions by the deadline-allegedly due to portal inaccessibility-leaving unaddressed its contention that proceeds were capital gains, not business income. The impugned assessment order was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration, with the petitioner put on terms to pay Rs.10,000 as a condition of reconsideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463633