Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Approved resolution plans extinguish unsubmitted pre-approval tax claims, preventing later recovery outside the insolvency process and preserving a cl...
Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment and permits working capital adjustment, while APA margins cannot govern non-covered years...
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act due to undisclosed cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient information to believe that the assessee's income had escaped assessment, justifying reopening u/s 147. The existence of tangible material forming the AO's belief is relevant, not its sufficiency at the reopening stage. The assessee did not file a return of income or participate in the reassessment proceedings. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding peak cash credits, requiring verification by lower authorities. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, as both assessment and appellate proceedings were ex-parte. The mandate is to bring the correct income to tax in the hands of the correct assessee for the correct assessment year.
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act due to undisclosed cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The key points are: The Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient information to believe that the assessee's income had escaped assessment, justifying reopening u/s 147. The existence of tangible material forming the AO's belief is relevant, not its sufficiency at the reopening stage. The assessee did not file a return of income or participate in the reassessment proceedings. The assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding peak cash credits, requiring verification by lower authorities. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, as both assessment and appellate proceedings were ex-parte. The mandate is to bring the correct income to tax in the hands of the correct assessee for the correct assessment year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
