https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783821 Reopening under s.148A(3) and the consequent notice under s.148 were challenged on the ground that the alleged escapement under s.56(2)(x) (stamp duty value exceeding stated consideration and payment shown as payable to a confirming party) had already been examined in a subsequent scrutiny assessment for the same AY. The HC held that the land was consistently disclosed in the books as stock-in-trade and s.56(2)(x) applies only where a capital asset is received with/without consideration; the AO, in the s.143(3) assessment, had considered the agreements, ledgers and confirmations and found s.56(2)(x) inapplicable, and the payment explanation was not an afterthought. Continuation of reassessment was held an abuse of process; the s.148A(3) order and s.148 notice were quashed. en-us Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 07:59:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783821 Reopening under s.148A(3) and the consequent notice under s.148 were challenged on the ground that the alleged escapement under s.56(2)(x) (stamp duty value exceeding stated consideration and payment shown as payable to a confirming party) had already been examined in a subsequent scrutiny assessment for the same AY. The HC held that the land was consistently disclosed in the books as stock-in-trade and s.56(2)(x) applies only where a capital asset is received with/without consideration; the AO, in the s.143(3) assessment, had considered the agreements, ledgers and confirmations and found s.56(2)(x) inapplicable, and the payment explanation was not an afterthought. Continuation of reassessment was held an abuse of process; the s.148A(3) order and s.148 notice were quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783821