Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reopening of assessment - reason to believe or reason to suspect - The ITAT examined the "reasons recorded" by the AO for reopening the assessment. It noted that the AO relied on the information provided by the SEBI order, which alleged manipulative trading practices by certain entities, including the director of the assessee company. However, the court observed that the name of the assessee company itself was not listed among the entities restrained by SEBI. - The Tribunal emphasized that for the reopening of an assessment, the AO must have "reasons to believe" that income has escaped assessment, not merely "reasons to suspect." It found that the information provided by the SEBI order could only trigger "reasons to suspect" and did not meet the legal requirement for reopening.
Reopening of assessment - reason to believe or reason to suspect - The ITAT examined the "reasons recorded" by the AO for reopening the assessment. It noted that the AO relied on the information provided by the SEBI order, which alleged manipulative trading practices by certain entities, including the director of the assessee company. However, the court observed that the name of the assessee company itself was not listed among the entities restrained by SEBI. - The Tribunal emphasized that for the reopening of an assessment, the AO must have "reasons to believe" that income has escaped assessment, not merely "reasons to suspect." It found that the information provided by the SEBI order could only trigger "reasons to suspect" and did not meet the legal requirement for reopening.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
