Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A CBDT-prescribed format defect in notice under section 143(2) was held to be only a technical irregularity and not, by itself, a ground to invalidate the assessment. The rejection of books under section 145(3) was found unjustified because specific reasons for such rejection were not properly established, although the cash-book discrepancies could still be examined for a separate addition under section 69A. On the cash-deposit issue, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment so the assessee could produce supporting evidence and the Assessing Officer could decide the source of deposits afresh after affording effective hearing.
A CBDT-prescribed format defect in notice under section 143(2) was held to be only a technical irregularity and not, by itself, a ground to invalidate the assessment. The rejection of books under section 145(3) was found unjustified because specific reasons for such rejection were not properly established, although the cash-book discrepancies could still be examined for a separate addition under section 69A. On the cash-deposit issue, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment so the assessee could produce supporting evidence and the Assessing Officer could decide the source of deposits afresh after affording effective hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
