Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The department had already raised queries regarding the accumulation and utilization of funds for different purposes during the original assessment proceedings in 2011. The assessee had provided explanations, which were accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) at that time. The notice for reopening assessment in 2016 was based on the same issue, which amounts to a mere change of opinion by the AO, not permissible for reopening under the 6-year limitation period. The court relied on precedents like Kelvinator of India and Marico Limited to conclude that once an issue is raised and responded to during assessment, the AO is deemed to have accepted the assessee's explanation if not dealt with in the order. Therefore, the reopening notice was held invalid, being a case of change of opinion, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The case pertains to the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The department had already raised queries regarding the accumulation and utilization of funds for different purposes during the original assessment proceedings in 2011. The assessee had provided explanations, which were accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) at that time. The notice for reopening assessment in 2016 was based on the same issue, which amounts to a mere change of opinion by the AO, not permissible for reopening under the 6-year limitation period. The court relied on precedents like Kelvinator of India and Marico Limited to conclude that once an issue is raised and responded to during assessment, the AO is deemed to have accepted the assessee's explanation if not dealt with in the order. Therefore, the reopening notice was held invalid, being a case of change of opinion, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
