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...
HC held that Form 26AS with apparent errors cannot constitute tangible material for reopening assessment. The assessment order was invalid as duplicate entries in Form 26AS showed only a minimal discrepancy of Rs. 1,926/- in salary income. The revenue's argument regarding extended limitation period was rejected. The AO lacked sufficient grounds to believe income had escaped assessment. Appellate authorities CIT(A) and ITAT concurred that the reassessment was unsustainable. The court ultimately decided in favor of the assessee, nullifying the reassessment proceedings due to lack of substantive evidence of income escapement.
HC held that Form 26AS with apparent errors cannot constitute tangible material for reopening assessment. The assessment order was invalid as duplicate entries in Form 26AS showed only a minimal discrepancy of Rs. 1,926/- in salary income. The revenue's argument regarding extended limitation period was rejected. The AO lacked sufficient grounds to believe income had escaped assessment. Appellate authorities CIT(A) and ITAT concurred that the reassessment was unsustainable. The court ultimately decided in favor of the assessee, nullifying the reassessment proceedings due to lack of substantive evidence of income escapement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.