Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of reopening assessment u/s 147 regarding unexplained cash credit u/s 68. It was held that the Assessing Officer must have a live nexus between the information possessed and the belief formed. The reasons provided by the AO only mentioned the nature of information and listed 13 companies without proper analysis. The AO did not inquire about the nature of these companies or how the money reached the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO did not apply his mind and relied on information without proper examination, leading to the quashing of the assessment reopening. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of reopening assessment u/s 147 regarding unexplained cash credit u/s 68. It was held that the Assessing Officer must have a live nexus between the information possessed and the belief formed. The reasons provided by the AO only mentioned the nature of information and listed 13 companies without proper analysis. The AO did not inquire about the nature of these companies or how the money reached the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO did not apply his mind and relied on information without proper examination, leading to the quashing of the assessment reopening. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.