Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 did not violate the provisions of Section 148A. The respondents provided the petitioners an opportunity of being heard as specified in the order. The court found that the impugned orders mentioned the non-genuine accommodation entries made by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta through various firms controlled by him, including M/s Kalki Trading Company and M/s Swastik Traders. The petitioners admitted transactions with these firms, involving the purchase and sale of commodities on the same day, indicating paper transactions. The court opined that the impugned orders u/s 148A(d) did not violate Section 148A, and the transactions being bogus, the petitioners' contentions regarding sale and not purchase lost their effect. The impugned orders did not fall within the exceptions settled by the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee case.
The High Court held that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 did not violate the provisions of Section 148A. The respondents provided the petitioners an opportunity of being heard as specified in the order. The court found that the impugned orders mentioned the non-genuine accommodation entries made by Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta through various firms controlled by him, including M/s Kalki Trading Company and M/s Swastik Traders. The petitioners admitted transactions with these firms, involving the purchase and sale of commodities on the same day, indicating paper transactions. The court opined that the impugned orders u/s 148A(d) did not violate Section 148A, and the transactions being bogus, the petitioners' contentions regarding sale and not purchase lost their effect. The impugned orders did not fall within the exceptions settled by the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee case.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
