Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reopening under amended Section 147 failed where the Assessing Officer relied only on high-value bank credits and debits already recorded in the books and audited accounts. The Court held that mere volume of inter-group loan transactions, without tangible material showing escapement of income, could not justify reassessment; absence of an NBFC licence and non-charging of interest were also irrelevant on the facts. It further held that the final Section 148A order could not rest on an M2M loss allegation or bullion purchase allegation when no prior opportunity was given and no supporting material was cited. The notices under Section 148 and the orders under Section 148A(3) were quashed.
Reopening under amended Section 147 failed where the Assessing Officer relied only on high-value bank credits and debits already recorded in the books and audited accounts. The Court held that mere volume of inter-group loan transactions, without tangible material showing escapement of income, could not justify reassessment; absence of an NBFC licence and non-charging of interest were also irrelevant on the facts. It further held that the final Section 148A order could not rest on an M2M loss allegation or bullion purchase allegation when no prior opportunity was given and no supporting material was cited. The notices under Section 148 and the orders under Section 148A(3) were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.