Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment is the crux of the reopening provision. The reasons recorded must be based on tangible material, evident from the reading of the reasons, constituting the mandatory requirement of Section 147. Assessments cannot be reopened merely on suspicion; the Assessing Officer must have "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, different from merely having a reason to suspect. In this case, there is no "close nexus" or "live link" between tangible material and the reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Information received from the Investigating Unit cannot be the sole basis; the Assessing Officer must take further steps, make inquiries, and gather material indicating income has escaped assessment before forming the belief. The Assessing Officer has not acquired any material to form such belief, lacking even a line of reason justifying the belief's formation. Consequently, the reopening does not satisfy the legal requirements of Sections 147 & 148. Thus, the reassessment proceedings are set aside, decided in favor of the assessee.
Formation of belief by the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment is the crux of the reopening provision. The reasons recorded must be based on tangible material, evident from the reading of the reasons, constituting the mandatory requirement of Section 147. Assessments cannot be reopened merely on suspicion; the Assessing Officer must have "reason to believe" that income has escaped assessment, different from merely having a reason to suspect. In this case, there is no "close nexus" or "live link" between tangible material and the reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Information received from the Investigating Unit cannot be the sole basis; the Assessing Officer must take further steps, make inquiries, and gather material indicating income has escaped assessment before forming the belief. The Assessing Officer has not acquired any material to form such belief, lacking even a line of reason justifying the belief's formation. Consequently, the reopening does not satisfy the legal requirements of Sections 147 & 148. Thus, the reassessment proceedings are set aside, decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.