Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 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" ?
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment u/s 147 merely based on a change of opinion. The assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment proceedings. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment did not reveal any fresh tangible material, indicating that the belief was formed based on a mere verification of records, resulting in a change of opinion. The Court emphasized the conceptual difference between the power to review and the power to reassess, stating that while the Assessing Officer lacks the power to review, reassessment must be based on fulfilling certain preconditions. Removing the concept of "change of opinion" would allow the Assessing Officer to review assessments under the guise of reopening, leading to potential abuse of power. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot justify reassessment proceedings.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment u/s 147 merely based on a change of opinion. The assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts during the original assessment proceedings. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment did not reveal any fresh tangible material, indicating that the belief was formed based on a mere verification of records, resulting in a change of opinion. The Court emphasized the conceptual difference between the power to review and the power to reassess, stating that while the Assessing Officer lacks the power to review, reassessment must be based on fulfilling certain preconditions. Removing the concept of "change of opinion" would allow the Assessing Officer to review assessments under the guise of reopening, leading to potential abuse of power. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, upholding the principle that a mere change of opinion cannot justify reassessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
