Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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 
