Mark-to-Market losses on principal-protected debentures are deductible as business expenditure when the obligation is crystallized under mercantile ac...
Deferred Payment of Customs Duty extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers with electronic registration and ICEGATE authentication for conditional c...
Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5821 to 5840 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment after four years was impermissible because the recorded reasons did not establish any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The information relied on for reopening-the nature of the business, licence arrangement, Indian company status, shareholding structure and related particulars-was already disclosed in the return, annual report, tax audit report and Form 3CEB, and the reasons merely asserted nondisclosure without identifying any specific undisclosed fact. On the section 80-IA issue, the reasons were also found erroneous: the relevant enterprise was the container terminal undertaking owned by the Indian assessee, and the Revenue had overlooked the assessee's own development activity and installation of terminal equipment. The reopening notice and consequential orders were quashed.
Reassessment after four years was impermissible because the recorded reasons did not establish any failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The information relied on for reopening-the nature of the business, licence arrangement, Indian company status, shareholding structure and related particulars-was already disclosed in the return, annual report, tax audit report and Form 3CEB, and the reasons merely asserted nondisclosure without identifying any specific undisclosed fact. On the section 80-IA issue, the reasons were also found erroneous: the relevant enterprise was the container terminal undertaking owned by the Indian assessee, and the Revenue had overlooked the assessee's own development activity and installation of terminal equipment. The reopening notice and consequential orders were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
