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...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
The HC quashed reassessment proceedings under s.147 initiated after four years on multiple grounds. The proceedings lacked jurisdiction as the reasons for reopening failed to specify any non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee as required by the first proviso to s.147. The Court noted discrepancies between reasons in the draft assessment order and those annexed to the reply affidavit. Additionally, the "guarantee fees" issue was already pending before the Tribunal, invoking the third proviso to s.147 which bars reassessment on matters under appellate consideration. The Court emphasized that since the issue had been examined and added in the original assessment, there was no income that had "escaped assessment," rendering the proceedings jurisdictionally defective.
The HC quashed reassessment proceedings under s.147 initiated after four years on multiple grounds. The proceedings lacked jurisdiction as the reasons for reopening failed to specify any non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee as required by the first proviso to s.147. The Court noted discrepancies between reasons in the draft assessment order and those annexed to the reply affidavit. Additionally, the "guarantee fees" issue was already pending before the Tribunal, invoking the third proviso to s.147 which bars reassessment on matters under appellate consideration. The Court emphasized that since the issue had been examined and added in the original assessment, there was no income that had "escaped assessment," rendering the proceedings jurisdictionally defective.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.