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...
The crux of the matter revolves around the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the addition made u/s 68 treating the share application received as a non-genuine transaction and accommodation entry. The key points are: The reopening was initiated based on the incriminating material found during a search operation at the premises of a third party, indicating that the assessee had obtained an entry from an entry operator. The Assessing Officer heavily relied on the report of the Investigation Wing without independently verifying the facts. The assessee contended that the reopening u/s 147 was unjustified as the incriminating material was recovered during a search, and the proper course should have been proceedings u/s 153C. The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 when the incriminating material was found during a search at a third party's premises. The CIT(A) failed to address the specific grounds raised by the assessee regarding the legality of reopening the assessment.
The crux of the matter revolves around the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and the addition made u/s 68 treating the share application received as a non-genuine transaction and accommodation entry. The key points are: The reopening was initiated based on the incriminating material found during a search operation at the premises of a third party, indicating that the assessee had obtained an entry from an entry operator. The Assessing Officer heavily relied on the report of the Investigation Wing without independently verifying the facts. The assessee contended that the reopening u/s 147 was unjustified as the incriminating material was recovered during a search, and the proper course should have been proceedings u/s 153C. The ITAT held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147 when the incriminating material was found during a search at a third party's premises. The CIT(A) failed to address the specific grounds raised by the assessee regarding the legality of reopening the assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
