Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 quashed the reopening notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 for reassessment beyond the period of four years. The assessee had filed returns disclosing long-term capital gains from the sale of land, which was subjected to scrutiny during the regular assessment. The Court held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were incorrect, based on assumptions and presumptions without any basis. The Court ruled that the reopening notice was impermissibly issued based on an audit objection, without any fresh tangible information available to the Assessing Officer to justify reopening an assessment already completed u/s 143(3) after more than four years. Consequently, the impugned notice u/s 148 was quashed in favor of the assessee.
The High Court quashed the reopening notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 148 for reassessment beyond the period of four years. The assessee had filed returns disclosing long-term capital gains from the sale of land, which was subjected to scrutiny during the regular assessment. The Court held that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as there was no failure on the assessee's part to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were incorrect, based on assumptions and presumptions without any basis. The Court ruled that the reopening notice was impermissibly issued based on an audit objection, without any fresh tangible information available to the Assessing Officer to justify reopening an assessment already completed u/s 143(3) after more than four years. Consequently, the impugned notice u/s 148 was quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
