Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
