Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT Nagpur considered the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147. The AO issued notice beyond four years alleging capital gain on "Sale of Vehicles" escaped assessment. The tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening were a change of opinion as the issue was already examined during the original assessment. The AO did not prove failure to disclose material facts, as the assessee had provided sale agreements. Without new evidence, the AO lacked jurisdiction u/s 147 after four years. Since no failure to disclose facts was alleged, the reassessment was deemed invalid. Decision favored the assessee. - AO had initially made an addition u/s 68 regarding the sale of vehicles. The re-assessment proceedings attempted to reclassify this under u/s 50 or 41(2), which the Tribunal found to be a mere change of opinion and not permissible.
The ITAT Nagpur considered the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147. The AO issued notice beyond four years alleging capital gain on "Sale of Vehicles" escaped assessment. The tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening were a change of opinion as the issue was already examined during the original assessment. The AO did not prove failure to disclose material facts, as the assessee had provided sale agreements. Without new evidence, the AO lacked jurisdiction u/s 147 after four years. Since no failure to disclose facts was alleged, the reassessment was deemed invalid. Decision favored the assessee. - AO had initially made an addition u/s 68 regarding the sale of vehicles. The re-assessment proceedings attempted to reclassify this under u/s 50 or 41(2), which the Tribunal found to be a mere change of opinion and not permissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.