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 High Court considered the validity of reopening an assessment based on excess funds not being part of an "approved refund" and thus subject to taxation. The Court noted that the approval to hold the fund was withdrawn only from the date of the order, not before. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of approval would only take effect from the date of the order, not earlier. Therefore, the notice issued for reopening the assessment was deemed invalid as the approval was still in effect at the time. The Tribunal rightly set aside the notice and subsequent reassessment order due to the lack of communication regarding the withdrawal of approval by the Commissioner.
The High Court considered the validity of reopening an assessment based on excess funds not being part of an "approved refund" and thus subject to taxation. The Court noted that the approval to hold the fund was withdrawn only from the date of the order, not before. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of approval would only take effect from the date of the order, not earlier. Therefore, the notice issued for reopening the assessment was deemed invalid as the approval was still in effect at the time. The Tribunal rightly set aside the notice and subsequent reassessment order due to the lack of communication regarding the withdrawal of approval by the Commissioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.