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...
Validity of reopening an assessment and the legality of issuing a new Show Cause Notice u/s 148-A(b) after the conclusion of initial reassessment proceedings. The key points are: The respondents issued a Show Cause Notice u/s 148-A(b) on the premise that the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Agarwal requires all notices issued u/s 148 between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, to be treated as notices u/s 148-A(b). However, the assessment proceedings in this case were already concluded on March 30, 2022. Subsequently, reassessment action was re-initiated on the same set of reasons via a Show Cause Notice dated June 2, 2022, u/s 148-A(b), leading to an order u/s 148-A(d) and a notice u/s 148 dated July 19, 2022. The High Court held that there was no justification for the respondents to issue fresh notices seeking to reopen the proceedings that had been concluded prior to the Ashish Agarwal judgment. The judgment does not mandate the reopening of completed assessments. Consequently, the impugned action for reassessment could not be sustained.
Validity of reopening an assessment and the legality of issuing a new Show Cause Notice u/s 148-A(b) after the conclusion of initial reassessment proceedings. The key points are: The respondents issued a Show Cause Notice u/s 148-A(b) on the premise that the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Agarwal requires all notices issued u/s 148 between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, to be treated as notices u/s 148-A(b). However, the assessment proceedings in this case were already concluded on March 30, 2022. Subsequently, reassessment action was re-initiated on the same set of reasons via a Show Cause Notice dated June 2, 2022, u/s 148-A(b), leading to an order u/s 148-A(d) and a notice u/s 148 dated July 19, 2022. The High Court held that there was no justification for the respondents to issue fresh notices seeking to reopen the proceedings that had been concluded prior to the Ashish Agarwal judgment. The judgment does not mandate the reopening of completed assessments. Consequently, the impugned action for reassessment could not be sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
