Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
