Today, the question highlighted by the Supreme Court judges in the previous hearing will be addressed that is, “Whether with respect to the concluded assessments the power would be re-assessment under 147 or assessment under 153A.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard different pleas regarding Section 153A of the Income Tax Act arising on account of conflicting judgments given by the High Court. The pleas were presented before a two-judge bench of the top Court comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia.
While hearing the case, Additional Solicitor General N Venkataraman mentioned two reasons in dissenting judgment. He added, “The first is that the jurisdictional requirement for satisfaction of 153A is not seizure of incriminating material. The jurisdictional requirement is that any such initiation should fall under 153A the moment there is a search. Then 143, and 147 get suspended and 153A starts applying. So the jurisdictional requirement is search and not seizure of incriminating material. The second downside of this interpretation is that you seizure incriminating material, then you come to assessment on all the three, if you don’t seize incriminating material, then you can’t do assessment on the rest of the two, it means we are shifting the jurisdictional requirement from search to seizure of incriminating material.”
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments