Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 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" ?
Validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 - The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for reopening the assessment under section 147/148 were based on incorrect assumptions and information. Specifically, the AO erroneously believed that the assessee, an individual, had entered into a transaction of sale of immovable property, whereas the transaction was actually between two partnership firms. - The Tribunal noted that the AO should have issued a notice to the partnership firm involved instead of the individual assessee. - Consequently, entire proceedings u/s. 148 is held to be invalid.
Validity of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 - The Tribunal found that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) for reopening the assessment under section 147/148 were based on incorrect assumptions and information. Specifically, the AO erroneously believed that the assessee, an individual, had entered into a transaction of sale of immovable property, whereas the transaction was actually between two partnership firms. - The Tribunal noted that the AO should have issued a notice to the partnership firm involved instead of the individual assessee. - Consequently, entire proceedings u/s. 148 is held to be invalid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.