Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
