Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
The Appellate Tribunal examined the reopening of assessment after four years and the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. It held that the original assessment was completed on 27.11.2018, and the notice u/s 148 for reopening was issued on 22.03.2019, after the expiry of the four-year period from the end of the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee had disclosed the information regarding the receipt of share capital in the return and financial statements during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer failed to substantiate any fault on the assessee's part in fully and truly disclosing material facts. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decisions in Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. and Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that after four years, reassessment is not permissible unless the assessee failed to truly and fully disclose necessary facts. Since the assessee had disclosed the details of shareholders who subscribed to the share capital, and the Assessing Officer had already made an addition for one shareholder in the original reopening order, the reopening beyond four years without recording any lapses on the assessee's part for non-disclosure was invalid. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal examined the reopening of assessment after four years and the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. It held that the original assessment was completed on 27.11.2018, and the notice u/s 148 for reopening was issued on 22.03.2019, after the expiry of the four-year period from the end of the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee had disclosed the information regarding the receipt of share capital in the return and financial statements during the original assessment. The Assessing Officer failed to substantiate any fault on the assessee's part in fully and truly disclosing material facts. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decisions in Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. and Ananta Landmark (P) Ltd., the Tribunal held that after four years, reassessment is not permissible unless the assessee failed to truly and fully disclose necessary facts. Since the assessee had disclosed the details of shareholders who subscribed to the share capital, and the Assessing Officer had already made an addition for one shareholder in the original reopening order, the reopening beyond four years without recording any lapses on the assessee's part for non-disclosure was invalid. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
