Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC upheld the reopening of assessment beyond the four-year limitation period, finding the appellant had claimed a deduction twice and failed to make full and true disclosure of material facts during original assessment proceedings. The AO correctly exercised jurisdiction under s. 147 after discovering the false claim. The court dismissed the writ appeal, noting that the appellant had already pursued alternate remedy by filing an appeal before the CIT(A) on the same issues after the writ petition's dismissal. The HC confirmed the appellant could address the merits of reopening before the CIT(A), rejecting the appellant's contention that no double claim existed.
The HC upheld the reopening of assessment beyond the four-year limitation period, finding the appellant had claimed a deduction twice and failed to make full and true disclosure of material facts during original assessment proceedings. The AO correctly exercised jurisdiction under s. 147 after discovering the false claim. The court dismissed the writ appeal, noting that the appellant had already pursued alternate remedy by filing an appeal before the CIT(A) on the same issues after the writ petition's dismissal. The HC confirmed the appellant could address the merits of reopening before the CIT(A), rejecting the appellant's contention that no double claim existed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
