Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
Discounted cash flow valuation protects share premium where projections are reasonable, while audited book expenses defeat unexplained-expenditure add...
Section 54 construction relief survives pre-transfer commencement when completion occurs within the statutory period, excluding ineligible spouse-owne...
Fraud classification show-cause notices founded on inconclusive forensic audit material cannot sustain action, permitting fresh proceedings on conclus...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
281 to 300 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening assessment proceedings u/s 147 and issuing notice u/s 148 based on information from the Annual Information Return (AIR) about substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient tangible material to reopen the case and the assessee's contention regarding non-supply of AIR information details was rejected. Regarding the additions made u/ss 69A and 69 for unexplained money and investments, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's grounds. Considering the decision in CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill, the Tribunal estimated 10% of the cash credits of Rs. 43,99,215 and other credits of Rs. 1.70 lacs as the assessee's reasonable income to avoid revenue leakage, instead of treating the entire transactions as income.
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the validity of reopening assessment proceedings u/s 147 and issuing notice u/s 148 based on information from the Annual Information Return (AIR) about substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer (AO) had sufficient tangible material to reopen the case and the assessee's contention regarding non-supply of AIR information details was rejected. Regarding the additions made u/ss 69A and 69 for unexplained money and investments, the Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's grounds. Considering the decision in CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill, the Tribunal estimated 10% of the cash credits of Rs. 43,99,215 and other credits of Rs. 1.70 lacs as the assessee's reasonable income to avoid revenue leakage, instead of treating the entire transactions as income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
