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...
ITAT upheld invalid reassessment where the show-cause notice under the reopening procedure was not accompanied by the relied-upon material, despite the assessee's request, and held that RMS or Insight inputs did not dispense with independent verification, disclosure of material, or observance of natural justice. It further held that the appellate authority could test the legality of the reopening while hearing the reassessment appeal. Additions based on third-party seized papers, statements and loose sheets failed because the material was not properly furnished, cross-examination was denied, and the documents were uncorroborated. Section 69A was held inapplicable to alleged cash borrowing. Later-year notices were also held time-barred, so the consequential reassessments did not survive.
ITAT upheld invalid reassessment where the show-cause notice under the reopening procedure was not accompanied by the relied-upon material, despite the assessee's request, and held that RMS or Insight inputs did not dispense with independent verification, disclosure of material, or observance of natural justice. It further held that the appellate authority could test the legality of the reopening while hearing the reassessment appeal. Additions based on third-party seized papers, statements and loose sheets failed because the material was not properly furnished, cross-examination was denied, and the documents were uncorroborated. Section 69A was held inapplicable to alleged cash borrowing. Later-year notices were also held time-barred, so the consequential reassessments did not survive.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
