Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment u/s 147 were vague, based on borrowed satisfaction without application of mind, and lacked a nexus with the material available. The allegation of availing accommodation entries was not substantiated with prima facie evidence or opinion regarding escapement of income. The court found non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, particularly regarding the alleged accommodation entry from Mahavir Sales Corporation, which the assessee had denied. Relying on precedents, the court reiterated that the Assessing Officer must confine to the recorded reasons for reopening and cannot refer to other facts or inferences. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was held invalid, and the decision was in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment u/s 147 were vague, based on borrowed satisfaction without application of mind, and lacked a nexus with the material available. The allegation of availing accommodation entries was not substantiated with prima facie evidence or opinion regarding escapement of income. The court found non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, particularly regarding the alleged accommodation entry from Mahavir Sales Corporation, which the assessee had denied. Relying on precedents, the court reiterated that the Assessing Officer must confine to the recorded reasons for reopening and cannot refer to other facts or inferences. Consequently, the reopening of assessment was held invalid, and the decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
