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 Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of the reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond four years. The assessment was based on notes to accounts for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had fully disclosed details during the original assessment u/s 143(3), and the assessing officer verified these details. The Tribunal emphasized that for reopening after four years, there must be a failure to disclose all material facts. The Supreme Court held that the AO can reassess based on new material only. In this case, the assessing officer made additions based on materials already verified in the original assessment u/s 143(3) without any new basis for reopening. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of the reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond four years. The assessment was based on notes to accounts for AY 2009-10. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had fully disclosed details during the original assessment u/s 143(3), and the assessing officer verified these details. The Tribunal emphasized that for reopening after four years, there must be a failure to disclose all material facts. The Supreme Court held that the AO can reassess based on new material only. In this case, the assessing officer made additions based on materials already verified in the original assessment u/s 143(3) without any new basis for reopening. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.