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 of assessment was examined on the basis of incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and an uncorroborated search statement. The Tribunal noted that the recorded reasons wrongly stated that share premium had been received and even identified entities that had not been allotted shares, showing non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It further held that reopening could not rest only on the director's statement without supporting material, consistent with CBDT instructions discouraging additions based solely on confession. On that basis, the notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment were quashed, and the jurisdictional challenge was allowed.
Reopening of assessment was examined on the basis of incorrect facts, borrowed satisfaction and an uncorroborated search statement. The Tribunal noted that the recorded reasons wrongly stated that share premium had been received and even identified entities that had not been allotted shares, showing non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. It further held that reopening could not rest only on the director's statement without supporting material, consistent with CBDT instructions discouraging additions based solely on confession. On that basis, the notice for reopening and the consequential reassessment were quashed, and the jurisdictional challenge was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.