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...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
941 to 960 of 95794 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.