Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was done solely for the purpose of verification of the source of purchase of property, which is not a valid reason as per settled judicial precedents. The Bombay High Court in Nivi Trading Ltd. v. Union of India has categorically held that reassessment u/s 147 cannot be done solely for verification purposes. Since reopening was done only for verification of source of investment in property, as evident from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, relying on the judicial propositions that reopening cannot be done for verification, the reopening of assessment is held invalid and unjustified, and consequently, the assessment order does not survive. The appeal is allowed on this ground.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 was done solely for the purpose of verification of the source of purchase of property, which is not a valid reason as per settled judicial precedents. The Bombay High Court in Nivi Trading Ltd. v. Union of India has categorically held that reassessment u/s 147 cannot be done solely for verification purposes. Since reopening was done only for verification of source of investment in property, as evident from the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, relying on the judicial propositions that reopening cannot be done for verification, the reopening of assessment is held invalid and unjustified, and consequently, the assessment order does not survive. The appeal is allowed on this ground.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
