Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) could not reopen the assessment merely based on a belief that the average gross profit in the assessee's business line should be around 0.5% of the turnover. The court ruled that before concluding the original assessment, the AO should have sought an explanation from the assessee regarding the low net profit declared. Reopening the assessment on this ground amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The court also observed that the AO could have requested the KYC documents if there were doubts about the cash deposits, instead of treating it as a ground for reopening. The court emphasized that reopening must be based on fresh facts or information exposing the untruthfulness of previously disclosed facts, not merely a different inference from the same facts. The court allowed the assessee's petition, concluding that the reopening would amount to an impermissible review.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) could not reopen the assessment merely based on a belief that the average gross profit in the assessee's business line should be around 0.5% of the turnover. The court ruled that before concluding the original assessment, the AO should have sought an explanation from the assessee regarding the low net profit declared. Reopening the assessment on this ground amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The court also observed that the AO could have requested the KYC documents if there were doubts about the cash deposits, instead of treating it as a ground for reopening. The court emphasized that reopening must be based on fresh facts or information exposing the untruthfulness of previously disclosed facts, not merely a different inference from the same facts. The court allowed the assessee's petition, concluding that the reopening would amount to an impermissible review.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.