Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was challenged on the ground of mere change of opinion. The assessee had filed return claiming deduction u/s 80IC and furnished all relevant details during original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The Assessing Officer, after examining the details, passed the assessment order accepting the return. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 was issued for reopening assessment on the ground that the undertaking availing deduction u/s 80IC was merged with the assessee company, rendering it ineligible for such deduction u/s 80IC(12) read with Section 80IA(12A). The High Court held that since all material facts were disclosed and examined during original assessment, reopening would amount to mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the reopening notice u/s 148 was quashed.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was challenged on the ground of mere change of opinion. The assessee had filed return claiming deduction u/s 80IC and furnished all relevant details during original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3). The Assessing Officer, after examining the details, passed the assessment order accepting the return. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 was issued for reopening assessment on the ground that the undertaking availing deduction u/s 80IC was merged with the assessee company, rendering it ineligible for such deduction u/s 80IC(12) read with Section 80IA(12A). The High Court held that since all material facts were disclosed and examined during original assessment, reopening would amount to mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the reopening notice u/s 148 was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.