Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court addressed the issue of reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The case involved the alleged absence of a "reason to believe" and a "live link" between information and belief. The assessment was reopened based on information uploaded by the ADIT (Inv) on the Income Tax Department's portal, designated as "High Risk Transaction" for 2016-17. The petitioner had declared the loss in the return for 2017-18, which was accepted by the AO. The Court emphasized that reopening required a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment, not merely a change of opinion. The Court found the existing Section 147 requirements were not met, as no credible information supported the reopening. The notice u/s 148 and the subsequent order were quashed in favor of the assessee.
The High Court addressed the issue of reopening assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The case involved the alleged absence of a "reason to believe" and a "live link" between information and belief. The assessment was reopened based on information uploaded by the ADIT (Inv) on the Income Tax Department's portal, designated as "High Risk Transaction" for 2016-17. The petitioner had declared the loss in the return for 2017-18, which was accepted by the AO. The Court emphasized that reopening required a valid reason to believe income had escaped assessment, not merely a change of opinion. The Court found the existing Section 147 requirements were not met, as no credible information supported the reopening. The notice u/s 148 and the subsequent order were quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.