Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Reopening of assessment after four years is invalid as the recorded reasons do not mention any failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. This is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Canara Bank, where reopening beyond four years was held bad in law when the AO did not allege non-disclosure of material facts. Similar view in ACIT vs Virbac Animal Health India, dismissing the SLP against the High Court order that reopening after four years due to change of opinion was invalid. Regarding bogus purchases, the entire sales turnover is reflected in books, considered for profit determination, and subjected to taxation. VAT returns and output tax paid support the transactions. The assessee provided materials showing the goods purchased were sold to a company, which further sold them to contractors for a thermal plant project. The AO examined these purchase-sale details during original assessment but found no defects. Based on merits and legal aspects, the reassessment initiated after four years without pointing out non-disclosure of material facts, and the addition for bogus purchases, are unjustified and invalid. Decided in favor of the assessee.
Reopening of assessment after four years is invalid as the recorded reasons do not mention any failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. This is covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Canara Bank, where reopening beyond four years was held bad in law when the AO did not allege non-disclosure of material facts. Similar view in ACIT vs Virbac Animal Health India, dismissing the SLP against the High Court order that reopening after four years due to change of opinion was invalid. Regarding bogus purchases, the entire sales turnover is reflected in books, considered for profit determination, and subjected to taxation. VAT returns and output tax paid support the transactions. The assessee provided materials showing the goods purchased were sold to a company, which further sold them to contractors for a thermal plant project. The AO examined these purchase-sale details during original assessment but found no defects. Based on merits and legal aspects, the reassessment initiated after four years without pointing out non-disclosure of material facts, and the addition for bogus purchases, are unjustified and invalid. Decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
