Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 reopening of assessment u/s 147 was not justified. The mere existence of an outstanding unsecured loan in the assessee's balance sheet did not provide a 'reason to believe' that the income had escaped assessment. There was no material to indicate that the Assessing Officer had any ground to believe that the loan availed by the assessee was chargeable to tax under the Act. The assessee had explained the source of the unsecured loan from its then director, which was duly disclosed in the notes to accounts. The Assessing Officer erroneously proceeded on the premise that the unsecured loan was unexplained and chargeable to tax u/s 68, without any basis. As per the Supreme Court's ruling in Lakhmani Mewal Das, reassessment can be initiated only on 'reason to believe' and not merely 'reason to suspect'. In the present case, there was no reason even to suspect that the balance sheet did not correctly reflect the assessee's state of affairs. The necessary condition for initiating reassessment u/s 147 was not satisfied, and therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 was not justified. The mere existence of an outstanding unsecured loan in the assessee's balance sheet did not provide a 'reason to believe' that the income had escaped assessment. There was no material to indicate that the Assessing Officer had any ground to believe that the loan availed by the assessee was chargeable to tax under the Act. The assessee had explained the source of the unsecured loan from its then director, which was duly disclosed in the notes to accounts. The Assessing Officer erroneously proceeded on the premise that the unsecured loan was unexplained and chargeable to tax u/s 68, without any basis. As per the Supreme Court's ruling in Lakhmani Mewal Das, reassessment can be initiated only on 'reason to believe' and not merely 'reason to suspect'. In the present case, there was no reason even to suspect that the balance sheet did not correctly reflect the assessee's state of affairs. The necessary condition for initiating reassessment u/s 147 was not satisfied, and therefore, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.