Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Reopening of assessment after expiry of four years due to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) was found invalid. The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to establish that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts, which is a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years. There was no requirement to declare deemed dividend in the return of income or tax audit report for that year. The assessee's account with the company was in the nature of a current account with multiple transactions. The CIT(A) incorrectly considered only the closing credit balance as deemed dividend. The AO did not correctly assume jurisdiction u/s 147 as the assessee's failure to disclose material facts was neither brought out by the AO nor evident from the record. Therefore, the reopening was incorrect and not in accordance with the first proviso to Section 147, and the decision was in favor of the assessee.
Reopening of assessment after expiry of four years due to deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) was found invalid. The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to establish that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts, which is a prerequisite for reopening beyond four years. There was no requirement to declare deemed dividend in the return of income or tax audit report for that year. The assessee's account with the company was in the nature of a current account with multiple transactions. The CIT(A) incorrectly considered only the closing credit balance as deemed dividend. The AO did not correctly assume jurisdiction u/s 147 as the assessee's failure to disclose material facts was neither brought out by the AO nor evident from the record. Therefore, the reopening was incorrect and not in accordance with the first proviso to Section 147, and the decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
