Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
