Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
In GST proceedings, invocation of the extended period under Section 74 depends on jurisdictional or foundational facts and a prima facie view, based on available material, that non-payment, short payment, wrongful input tax credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression exists. The notice should ordinarily disclose the basis for alleging the mental element, but prior communication of those grounds through scrutiny, audit, inspection or pre-notice intimation can satisfy the requirement, so a detailed notice is not invalid merely because it repeats earlier allegations. Notices were upheld where the basis had already been disclosed, while an inadequately particularised order was remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73, with possible recourse to Section 74 if information remained unprovided.
In GST proceedings, invocation of the extended period under Section 74 depends on jurisdictional or foundational facts and a prima facie view, based on available material, that non-payment, short payment, wrongful input tax credit, fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression exists. The notice should ordinarily disclose the basis for alleging the mental element, but prior communication of those grounds through scrutiny, audit, inspection or pre-notice intimation can satisfy the requirement, so a detailed notice is not invalid merely because it repeats earlier allegations. Notices were upheld where the basis had already been disclosed, while an inadequately particularised order was remitted for fresh consideration under Section 73, with possible recourse to Section 74 if information remained unprovided.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
