Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1721 to 1740 of 96510 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 4826 
Join Channel 
