Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
Reassessment proceedings initiated u/ss 148/148A were held invalid as the fundamental premise of the Revenue that investments made by the Foreign Portfolio Investor in shares amounted to "income" escaping assessment was flawed. The funds remitted in India were used for subscription in securities, a Capital Account Transaction, and no income was earned in the relevant Assessment Year. The discrepancy in share prices was not mentioned in the notice u/s 148A(b), violating principles of natural justice as the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to reply. The foundational material alone is relevant for evaluating the invocation of reassessment powers, and the Revenue cannot raise fresh grounds while passing the order u/s 148A(d). The reasons recorded for issuing the notice u/s 148 were unsustainable, and the impugned notices and consequential order were quashed.
Reassessment proceedings initiated u/ss 148/148A were held invalid as the fundamental premise of the Revenue that investments made by the Foreign Portfolio Investor in shares amounted to "income" escaping assessment was flawed. The funds remitted in India were used for subscription in securities, a Capital Account Transaction, and no income was earned in the relevant Assessment Year. The discrepancy in share prices was not mentioned in the notice u/s 148A(b), violating principles of natural justice as the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to reply. The foundational material alone is relevant for evaluating the invocation of reassessment powers, and the Revenue cannot raise fresh grounds while passing the order u/s 148A(d). The reasons recorded for issuing the notice u/s 148 were unsustainable, and the impugned notices and consequential order were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
