Mandatory textile export qualifiers distinguish flame-retardant fabrics from other listed fabrics for automated identification under the textiles ince...
Personal liberty safeguards restrict arrest after court-directed GST appearance, requiring interim release where authorities overreach pending proceed...
Alternative statutory remedy and delay bar GST writ challenges despite pending rectification, while distinct subject matter permits parallel proceedin...
Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 97649 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.