Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 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 - reasons for re-opening within or beyond 4 years - reasons to believe - The court specifically pointed out that the information used from the DRI and the Shah Commission reports was not adequately scrutinized independently by the assessing officers to form a reasonable belief of tax evasion. The court noted that the decision of the Supreme Court, which found mining leases post-2007 to be illegal, could not retroactively make previous business activities illegal for tax purposes. The court emphasized that such interpretations were not known or could not have been known by the taxpayers at the time of filing their returns.
Reopening of assessment - reasons for re-opening within or beyond 4 years - reasons to believe - The court specifically pointed out that the information used from the DRI and the Shah Commission reports was not adequately scrutinized independently by the assessing officers to form a reasonable belief of tax evasion. The court noted that the decision of the Supreme Court, which found mining leases post-2007 to be illegal, could not retroactively make previous business activities illegal for tax purposes. The court emphasized that such interpretations were not known or could not have been known by the taxpayers at the time of filing their returns.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.