Transfer-pricing reimbursement adjustments require uncontrolled comparables and cannot become expense-genuineness reviews, resulting in deletion of th...
Food import sampling requirements support provisional release where unseized consignments conform to standards and raw areca classification is unestab...
Diagnostic microcuvette classification follows sole-use analytical function, placing specialised disposable cuvettes with their analyser rather than g...
Customs Broker licensing proceedings fail when their offence-report foundation collapses and authorisation, advisory, and KYC duties remain unbreached...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4891 
