Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court examined the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after a four-year lapse. The court emphasized the requirement of "reasons to believe" for reopening assessments. It noted that the AO lacked specific grounds for reassessment, resembling past cases. The CIT(A) upheld reassessment based on a revenue audit report, but failed to establish a direct link between reasons and belief u/s 147. The court found the initiation of reassessment after four years without fresh material as legally unsound, rejecting the Revenue's case. The decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the need for concrete grounds for reassessment within the statutory period.
The Delhi High Court examined the validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 after a four-year lapse. The court emphasized the requirement of "reasons to believe" for reopening assessments. It noted that the AO lacked specific grounds for reassessment, resembling past cases. The CIT(A) upheld reassessment based on a revenue audit report, but failed to establish a direct link between reasons and belief u/s 147. The court found the initiation of reassessment after four years without fresh material as legally unsound, rejecting the Revenue's case. The decision favored the assessee, emphasizing the need for concrete grounds for reassessment within the statutory period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
