Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1601 to 1620 of 96463 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 - onus to prove - The High court noted that reassessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is permissible only if there is a failure by the taxpayer to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. - The court observed that the petitioner had disclosed all primary facts related to the waiver of loans in the original assessment proceedings. It was emphasized that the production of account books or other evidence does not necessarily amount to full disclosure as required by law. - As such, the reassessment was deemed to be based on a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening an assessment under the relevant sections of the Act.
Reopening of assessment - reason to believe - onus to prove - The High court noted that reassessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is permissible only if there is a failure by the taxpayer to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. - The court observed that the petitioner had disclosed all primary facts related to the waiver of loans in the original assessment proceedings. It was emphasized that the production of account books or other evidence does not necessarily amount to full disclosure as required by law. - As such, the reassessment was deemed to be based on a change of opinion, which is not a valid ground for reopening an assessment under the relevant sections of the Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
