Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
HC invalidated reassessment proceedings initiated under s.147 for AY 2014-15. AO's reliance solely on insight portal information regarding transactions with ASE Capital Markets Ltd was deemed mechanical and without independent application of mind. The assessee had fully disclosed F&O losses of Rs.41,56,218 in original return, accepted under s.143(3). AO failed to explain why only Rs.27,61,650 was considered non-genuine. No tangible material or verification supported the reopening, and AO's belief was based on borrowed satisfaction without considering existing assessment records. Court found no failure by assessee to disclose material facts, making reopening after four years unjustified as it merely reflected change of opinion.
HC invalidated reassessment proceedings initiated under s.147 for AY 2014-15. AO's reliance solely on insight portal information regarding transactions with ASE Capital Markets Ltd was deemed mechanical and without independent application of mind. The assessee had fully disclosed F&O losses of Rs.41,56,218 in original return, accepted under s.143(3). AO failed to explain why only Rs.27,61,650 was considered non-genuine. No tangible material or verification supported the reopening, and AO's belief was based on borrowed satisfaction without considering existing assessment records. Court found no failure by assessee to disclose material facts, making reopening after four years unjustified as it merely reflected change of opinion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.