Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction was invalid. The addition u/s 69A for unexplained investment/credit was unsustainable as the assessee failed to furnish the same before the lower authorities. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on irrelevant facts could not be sustained after rejection by the DRP and allegations of mechanical passing without application of mind. Relying on the Excel Commodity Derivative case, the ITAT ruled that the term 'information' under Explanation 1 of Section 148 cannot be used lightly for reopening assessments. The AO had erroneously issued notice and made additions on fresh grounds after considering the assessee's submissions. The ITAT held that the impugned orders were illegal and unsustainable, aligning with the Akshar Builders & Developers and Paranjape Schemes cases, which reprimanded mechanical reassessments based on erroneous information and non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the draft and final assessment orders and allowed the assessee's appeal.
The ITAT held that the final assessment order passed u/s 147 read with Section 144C(13) pursuant to the Dispute Resolution Panel's direction was invalid. The addition u/s 69A for unexplained investment/credit was unsustainable as the assessee failed to furnish the same before the lower authorities. The draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on irrelevant facts could not be sustained after rejection by the DRP and allegations of mechanical passing without application of mind. Relying on the Excel Commodity Derivative case, the ITAT ruled that the term 'information' under Explanation 1 of Section 148 cannot be used lightly for reopening assessments. The AO had erroneously issued notice and made additions on fresh grounds after considering the assessee's submissions. The ITAT held that the impugned orders were illegal and unsustainable, aligning with the Akshar Builders & Developers and Paranjape Schemes cases, which reprimanded mechanical reassessments based on erroneous information and non-application of mind. Consequently, the ITAT quashed the draft and final assessment orders and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
