Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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.