Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The assessment reopening u/s 147 read with Section 148 was found to be unsustainable due to the lack of independent application of mind by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) in granting approval. The CIT's approval was given in a slipshod manner without recording their own satisfaction, rendering the subsequent notice u/s 148 and assessment proceedings invalid. The addition made u/s 69 was also found to be improper as the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to invoke or apply any specific provision of law while making the addition. The AO did not specify the head under which the addition was made, whether business income, capital gains, or u/ss 48, 56, 68, or 69. Making an addition without invoking the relevant provision of the Act is against the law and liable to be deleted. The reasons for the addition cannot be supplemented by the assessment order or affidavit, and the assessee must be notified of the exact contravention or provision under which the assessment or additions are sought. Consequently, the addition sustained by the lower authorities deserves to be deleted, and the appeal allowed on merits.
The assessment reopening u/s 147 read with Section 148 was found to be unsustainable due to the lack of independent application of mind by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) in granting approval. The CIT's approval was given in a slipshod manner without recording their own satisfaction, rendering the subsequent notice u/s 148 and assessment proceedings invalid. The addition made u/s 69 was also found to be improper as the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to invoke or apply any specific provision of law while making the addition. The AO did not specify the head under which the addition was made, whether business income, capital gains, or u/ss 48, 56, 68, or 69. Making an addition without invoking the relevant provision of the Act is against the law and liable to be deleted. The reasons for the addition cannot be supplemented by the assessment order or affidavit, and the assessee must be notified of the exact contravention or provision under which the assessment or additions are sought. Consequently, the addition sustained by the lower authorities deserves to be deleted, and the appeal allowed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.