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...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Validity of Reopening of assessment - tangible materials - petitioner had failed to deduct withholding tax on the assumption that the AAR would issue a favourable ruling - The High court observed that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a factual error regarding the scope of transactions covered by the AAR application. It held that if reassessment proceedings are initiated mechanically or on a wrong factual basis, they may warrant interference. - Regarding the approval for reassessment, the court found that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was not a specified authority u/s 151 for the relevant assessment years, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. - Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and notices, rendering the assessment orders null and void.
Validity of Reopening of assessment - tangible materials - petitioner had failed to deduct withholding tax on the assumption that the AAR would issue a favourable ruling - The High court observed that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a factual error regarding the scope of transactions covered by the AAR application. It held that if reassessment proceedings are initiated mechanically or on a wrong factual basis, they may warrant interference. - Regarding the approval for reassessment, the court found that the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was not a specified authority u/s 151 for the relevant assessment years, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. - Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and notices, rendering the assessment orders null and void.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
