Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of reassessment proceedings questioned due to...
Reassessment quashed due to email issues. Petitioner to address income source for deposits, pay Rs.25L/year. Fresh orders for closed firm's assessment.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Validity of reassessment proceedings questioned due to non-filing of responses against notices issued, as old email ID was inaccessible. Court held petitioner deserves fair chance to address grievances regarding reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of Income Tax Act for partnership firm that closed business. Petitioner must establish if huge deposits were accounted for. Impugned assessment orders quashed, case remitted to pass fresh orders. Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- each for respective assessment years and file reply to Section 148A(b) notices within 4 months.
Validity of reassessment proceedings questioned due to non-filing of responses against notices issued, as old email ID was inaccessible. Court held petitioner deserves fair chance to address grievances regarding reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of Income Tax Act for partnership firm that closed business. Petitioner must establish if huge deposits were accounted for. Impugned assessment orders quashed, case remitted to pass fresh orders. Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- each for respective assessment years and file reply to Section 148A(b) notices within 4 months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.