Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.