Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 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 of assessment - The High Court found that the Assessing Officer issued the notice based on the survey action on Jammu & Kashmir Bank, conducted after the original assessment order. The Court concluded that the notice was not issued due to any fresh tangible material but rather on the basis of the same material already available during the original assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the discrepancies in remittance amounts were explained by the bank's practice of applying notional and actual rates during transaction processing. The High Court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Validity of reopening of assessment - The High Court found that the Assessing Officer issued the notice based on the survey action on Jammu & Kashmir Bank, conducted after the original assessment order. The Court concluded that the notice was not issued due to any fresh tangible material but rather on the basis of the same material already available during the original assessment proceedings. The Court noted that the discrepancies in remittance amounts were explained by the bank's practice of applying notional and actual rates during transaction processing. The High Court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
