PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment and addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of the assessee was unjustified and unsustainable. The assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital through legal evidence. The Tribunal applied the law laid down in the case of M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The regular assessment was framed u/s 143(3), and during the assessment process, the share capital contribution was examined and accepted. No new tangible material had emerged subsequent to the order passed u/s 143(3). The reasons recorded for reopening merely indicated information received regarding a statement given by an individual during a search conducted at his premises, which was not specific to the assessee's transaction. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 for reassessment was held to be not in accordance with the law, and the reassessment framed was canceled.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment and addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of the assessee was unjustified and unsustainable. The assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital through legal evidence. The Tribunal applied the law laid down in the case of M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The regular assessment was framed u/s 143(3), and during the assessment process, the share capital contribution was examined and accepted. No new tangible material had emerged subsequent to the order passed u/s 143(3). The reasons recorded for reopening merely indicated information received regarding a statement given by an individual during a search conducted at his premises, which was not specific to the assessee's transaction. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 for reassessment was held to be not in accordance with the law, and the reassessment framed was canceled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.