Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Concurrent anticipatory-bail jurisdiction permits applications before either forum, while secured evidence may negate custodial interrogation in GST e...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment of the existence of a permanent establishment...
Permanent-establishment reassessment cannot revisit scrutinised disclosures; extended reopening fails without undisclosed material facts and within statutory limitation.
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 of the existence of a permanent establishment cannot revisit an issue already examined during scrutiny merely because the assessment order did not expressly record a finding. Where subscription arrangements and the agent relationship were disclosed and considered, reopening would improperly cure the Assessing Officer's failure to record a conclusion, undermining assessment finality. Reopening after four years from a scrutiny assessment also requires failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. As that jurisdictional condition was absent and the notice was issued beyond the statutory six-year period, the reassessment notice was quashed without deciding whether a permanent establishment existed in India.
Reassessment of the existence of a permanent establishment cannot revisit an issue already examined during scrutiny merely because the assessment order did not expressly record a finding. Where subscription arrangements and the agent relationship were disclosed and considered, reopening would improperly cure the Assessing Officer's failure to record a conclusion, undermining assessment finality. Reopening after four years from a scrutiny assessment also requires failure to make a full and true disclosure of material facts. As that jurisdictional condition was absent and the notice was issued beyond the statutory six-year period, the reassessment notice was quashed without deciding whether a permanent establishment existed in India.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.