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 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 4828 
Join Channel 
