Residual food-preparation classification places fermented Nata De Coco outside fruit-jelly categories, changing its GST treatment across notified peri...
Settlement application eligibility requires a pending assessment when filed, preventing an extra prior-eligibility condition from blocking considerati...
Reassessment for unreturned property sales survives where transfer information, non-filing, and unsupported exemption claims establish a prima facie l...
Page of 4886
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
521 to 540 of 97714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessment years beyond six years but not exceeding ten years can be reopened u/s 153A only if the Assessing Officer possesses evidence depicting escapement of income aggregating Rs.50,00,000/- or more in such relevant assessment years. These provisions extending the assessment period beyond six years up to ten years impose a stringent condition of the Assessing Officer possessing evidence of escapement of income of Rs.50,00,000/- or more. Such provisions must be construed strictly, and the evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer in such extended period assessments must be tangible. The Departmental Valuation Officer's report on a standalone basis without corroborating material cannot be construed as incriminating material, and additions solely based on the Departmental Valuation Officer's report are unsustainable. In the assessee's case, no difference was found between the investment disclosed in the books of account and the Departmental Valuation Officer's report for the property. Since the evidence relating to undisclosed investments in the "relevant assessment years" was less than Rs.50,00,000/-, the reopening of the assessment for the "relevant years" was invalid and quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The assessment years beyond six years but not exceeding ten years can be reopened u/s 153A only if the Assessing Officer possesses evidence depicting escapement of income aggregating Rs.50,00,000/- or more in such relevant assessment years. These provisions extending the assessment period beyond six years up to ten years impose a stringent condition of the Assessing Officer possessing evidence of escapement of income of Rs.50,00,000/- or more. Such provisions must be construed strictly, and the evidence relied upon by the Assessing Officer in such extended period assessments must be tangible. The Departmental Valuation Officer's report on a standalone basis without corroborating material cannot be construed as incriminating material, and additions solely based on the Departmental Valuation Officer's report are unsustainable. In the assessee's case, no difference was found between the investment disclosed in the books of account and the Departmental Valuation Officer's report for the property. Since the evidence relating to undisclosed investments in the "relevant assessment years" was less than Rs.50,00,000/-, the reopening of the assessment for the "relevant years" was invalid and quashed. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.