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 ...
The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 and the consequent order passed u/s 147 regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A, treating the long-term capital gain on the sale of shares claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) as bogus. The Tribunal held that when the reopening is based on information received from the investigation wing, the reasons must show that the Assessing Officer independently applied their mind to the information and formed their own opinion. However, in this case, the Assessing Officer merely stated the information received and their conclusion about the alleged escapement of income but did not mention what they did with the available information. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report forming the basis and any inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer, along with the conclusion. If the reasons refer to any document, such document or relevant portion must be enclosed. In this case, the available information with the Assessing Officer was neither stated nor enclosed, rendering the reasons recorded not in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Assessing Officer incorrectly mentioned that the assessee did not declare the long-term capital gain in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148, whereas the assessee had categorically shown the exempt income comprising capital gain u/s 10(38) and dividend from shares. Consequently, the notice issue.
The Appellate Tribunal examined the validity of the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 and the consequent order passed u/s 147 regarding the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A, treating the long-term capital gain on the sale of shares claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) as bogus. The Tribunal held that when the reopening is based on information received from the investigation wing, the reasons must show that the Assessing Officer independently applied their mind to the information and formed their own opinion. However, in this case, the Assessing Officer merely stated the information received and their conclusion about the alleged escapement of income but did not mention what they did with the available information. The reasons must also paraphrase any investigation report forming the basis and any inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer, along with the conclusion. If the reasons refer to any document, such document or relevant portion must be enclosed. In this case, the available information with the Assessing Officer was neither stated nor enclosed, rendering the reasons recorded not in accordance with the law. Additionally, the Assessing Officer incorrectly mentioned that the assessee did not declare the long-term capital gain in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148, whereas the assessee had categorically shown the exempt income comprising capital gain u/s 10(38) and dividend from shares. Consequently, the notice issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
