Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment based on inapplicable information is examined where recorded reasons allege manipulated share transactions involving capital gains or losses, but the taxpayer's actual transaction was an intraday share trade with disclosed business profit. The notes state that, where the alleged transactions do not exist in the taxpayer's case and the disclosed profit remains below the reopening threshold cited in the reasons, the factual foundation for reopening fails. They further note that a Tribunal order quashing such reassessment was not interfered with because no substantial question of law arose from those factual findings.
Reassessment based on inapplicable information is examined where recorded reasons allege manipulated share transactions involving capital gains or losses, but the taxpayer's actual transaction was an intraday share trade with disclosed business profit. The notes state that, where the alleged transactions do not exist in the taxpayer's case and the disclosed profit remains below the reopening threshold cited in the reasons, the factual foundation for reopening fails. They further note that a Tribunal order quashing such reassessment was not interfered with because no substantial question of law arose from those factual findings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.