Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Validity of reopening an assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, the distinction between "change of opinion" and "reasons to believe," and the classification of income as capital gains or business income. The assessee's investment source and short-term capital gains remained unexplained. The court held that the revenue failed to produce new information or documentary evidence for reopening the case, and a mere change of opinion by a new assessing officer cannot justify reassessment. The assessing officer changed the grounds for reassessment from treating the income as short-term capital gains to "adventure in the nature of business," which the court deemed a colorable exercise of power. The court found that the land sale did not constitute capital gains as it was agricultural land beyond municipal limits. The assessment proceedings undertaken in 2016 did not warrant interference or reopening for fresh assessment, rendering the entire proceedings initiated in 2020 illegal.
Validity of reopening an assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, the distinction between "change of opinion" and "reasons to believe," and the classification of income as capital gains or business income. The assessee's investment source and short-term capital gains remained unexplained. The court held that the revenue failed to produce new information or documentary evidence for reopening the case, and a mere change of opinion by a new assessing officer cannot justify reassessment. The assessing officer changed the grounds for reassessment from treating the income as short-term capital gains to "adventure in the nature of business," which the court deemed a colorable exercise of power. The court found that the land sale did not constitute capital gains as it was agricultural land beyond municipal limits. The assessment proceedings undertaken in 2016 did not warrant interference or reopening for fresh assessment, rendering the entire proceedings initiated in 2020 illegal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
