Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 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 held that the Assessing Officer had credible reasons to reopen the assessment u/s 147 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. During the search and seizure proceedings, statements of certain individuals connected with M/s Spaze Group were recorded u/s 131(1A), including Mr. Anand Singh, the proprietor of M/s JMD International. His statements revealed that he was not in control of the concern, and it was controlled by Sh. Kishori Sharan Goyal for providing "Bogus Billing to various entities." The record showed that M/s JMD International made payments to the petitioner, giving the Assessing Officer reason to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. The contention that all receipts were taxed in the previous Assessment Year 2010-11 was erroneous, as the petitioner's ledger account indicated receipt of certain amounts from M/s JMD International in the financial year 2010-11 (relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12). The court stated that it was unnecessary to examine the quantum of receipts, as prima facie, all receipts from M/s JMD International were not taxed in Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner's argument that the books of accounts were available with the Assessing Officer was unmerited, as.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer had credible reasons to reopen the assessment u/s 147 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. During the search and seizure proceedings, statements of certain individuals connected with M/s Spaze Group were recorded u/s 131(1A), including Mr. Anand Singh, the proprietor of M/s JMD International. His statements revealed that he was not in control of the concern, and it was controlled by Sh. Kishori Sharan Goyal for providing "Bogus Billing to various entities." The record showed that M/s JMD International made payments to the petitioner, giving the Assessing Officer reason to believe that the petitioner's income had escaped assessment. The contention that all receipts were taxed in the previous Assessment Year 2010-11 was erroneous, as the petitioner's ledger account indicated receipt of certain amounts from M/s JMD International in the financial year 2010-11 (relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12). The court stated that it was unnecessary to examine the quantum of receipts, as prima facie, all receipts from M/s JMD International were not taxed in Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner's argument that the books of accounts were available with the Assessing Officer was unmerited, as.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.