Permanent-establishment reassessment cannot revisit scrutinised disclosures; extended reopening fails without undisclosed material facts and within st...
Modified returns after business reorganisation must be assessed within pending proceedings, barring parallel scrutiny and consequential transfer prici...
Turnover mismatches under percentage-completion accounting cannot alone establish suppressed income where customer advances remain recorded as liabili...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
541 to 560 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" ?
Section 132B's reference to a "person concerned" extends to a third-party claimant whose ownership of cash seized from another person's premises has been established in benami proceedings. Ownership establishes standing to seek release but does not itself satisfy the statutory conditions for release. The first proviso requires an application within the prescribed period explaining the nature and source of acquisition to the Assessing Officer's satisfaction; a bare release request is inadequate. Release was not accepted where the application was late and omitted that explanation, while source-related assessment proceedings remained pending or contemplated. Questions on the provisos' effect, including expiry of 120 days, were referred to a Larger Bench.
Section 132B's reference to a "person concerned" extends to a third-party claimant whose ownership of cash seized from another person's premises has been established in benami proceedings. Ownership establishes standing to seek release but does not itself satisfy the statutory conditions for release. The first proviso requires an application within the prescribed period explaining the nature and source of acquisition to the Assessing Officer's satisfaction; a bare release request is inadequate. Release was not accepted where the application was late and omitted that explanation, while source-related assessment proceedings remained pending or contemplated. Questions on the provisos' effect, including expiry of 120 days, were referred to a Larger Bench.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.