Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC held that the Assessing Officer's (AO) reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. The AO's notice under Section 148A(d) exceeded the scope of original information, which suggested potential escaped income. The Assessee provided satisfactory explanations regarding TCS collection, cash deposits during demonetization, and time deposits. The court found no substantive evidence to support the reopening of assessment, thus setting aside the impugned notice and order. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness and the need for precise jurisdictional basis when reassessing tax liabilities.
The HC held that the Assessing Officer's (AO) reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid. The AO's notice under Section 148A(d) exceeded the scope of original information, which suggested potential escaped income. The Assessee provided satisfactory explanations regarding TCS collection, cash deposits during demonetization, and time deposits. The court found no substantive evidence to support the reopening of assessment, thus setting aside the impugned notice and order. The decision emphasizes procedural fairness and the need for precise jurisdictional basis when reassessing tax liabilities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
