Credit-note turnover adjustments preserve inverted-duty refunds, while ministerial re-computation does not constitute an impermissible appellate reman...
Revisional jurisdiction over export quota premium deductions requires both error and Revenue prejudice; a permissible assessment view cannot be displa...
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.