Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Mechanical approval under search assessment law vitiates assessments when sanction lacks application of mind; retrospective curative provision cannot ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 based on reasons to believe, where the head of income was changed from business to income from other sources due to poor quality material in sub-contract execution. The Appellate Tribunal held that no fresh information was available to the Assessing Officer (AO) at the time of recording reasons for reopening, rendering the reassessment a mere change of opinion. The law requires reasons for reopening to be based on new information not previously considered. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support this principle. The AO's reliance on post-survey inquiries by the same AO was deemed insufficient for reopening. The Tribunal found no basis for escapement of income without quantifying the alleged tax evasion. The assessment under section 147 was deemed illegal and quashed in favor of the assessee.
The case involves the validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 based on reasons to believe, where the head of income was changed from business to income from other sources due to poor quality material in sub-contract execution. The Appellate Tribunal held that no fresh information was available to the Assessing Officer (AO) at the time of recording reasons for reopening, rendering the reassessment a mere change of opinion. The law requires reasons for reopening to be based on new information not previously considered. The Tribunal cited legal precedents to support this principle. The AO's reliance on post-survey inquiries by the same AO was deemed insufficient for reopening. The Tribunal found no basis for escapement of income without quantifying the alleged tax evasion. The assessment under section 147 was deemed illegal and quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
