Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
