Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
