Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was challenged. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed 20% of total sundry creditors in the regular assessment u/s 143(3). The AO sought to reopen assessment on the ground that the remaining 80% required verification. The High Court held that since the issue of sundry creditors was considered during the regular assessment, the AO cannot reopen assessment on the same issue as it would amount to a change of opinion. Further, the matter of 20% disallowance is pending before the CIT(Appeals), and the AO cannot reopen assessment on the remaining 80% due to the principle of merger. Mere audit objection cannot be the basis for reopening assessment. The petition was allowed, quashing the reopening notice u/s 148.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was challenged. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed 20% of total sundry creditors in the regular assessment u/s 143(3). The AO sought to reopen assessment on the ground that the remaining 80% required verification. The High Court held that since the issue of sundry creditors was considered during the regular assessment, the AO cannot reopen assessment on the same issue as it would amount to a change of opinion. Further, the matter of 20% disallowance is pending before the CIT(Appeals), and the AO cannot reopen assessment on the remaining 80% due to the principle of merger. Mere audit objection cannot be the basis for reopening assessment. The petition was allowed, quashing the reopening notice u/s 148.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.