Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
201 to 220 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment jurisdiction cannot rest on unverified, factually...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Reassessment jurisdiction cannot rest on unverified, factually incorrect information or disregard the taxpayer's specific explanation. Aggregating distinct information-portal entries as escaped income, when only one entry was relevant, showed non-application of mind; the eventual addition also did not match the aggregated amount or one entry. Reopening on that premise was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to verify the information before assuming jurisdiction and did not address the objection. The reassessment order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Reassessment jurisdiction cannot rest on unverified, factually incorrect information or disregard the taxpayer's specific explanation. Aggregating distinct information-portal entries as escaped income, when only one entry was relevant, showed non-application of mind; the eventual addition also did not match the aggregated amount or one entry. Reopening on that premise was invalid because the Assessing Officer failed to verify the information before assuming jurisdiction and did not address the objection. The reassessment order was quashed and the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.