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 the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act, rejecting the assessee's contention that once returns are filed and accepted, they cannot be reopened. The Court emphasized that the assessing officer must have a recorded reason to believe, supported by tangible material with a live link, that income has escaped assessment. The facts showed that the assessee raised substantial share capital from paper companies, which was not reflected in the original returns, justifying the reopening. The procedural requirements, including sanction from higher authorities and furnishing reasons to the assessee, were complied with. The Court held that the power to reassess is intended to prevent wilful misstatements and ensure true disclosure. The petitioner's objections were dismissed, confirming the legality of the reassessment proceedings and affirming the absence of any bar to reopening under the amended provisions effective from 01.04.1989.
The HC upheld the reopening of the assessment under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act, rejecting the assessee's contention that once returns are filed and accepted, they cannot be reopened. The Court emphasized that the assessing officer must have a recorded reason to believe, supported by tangible material with a live link, that income has escaped assessment. The facts showed that the assessee raised substantial share capital from paper companies, which was not reflected in the original returns, justifying the reopening. The procedural requirements, including sanction from higher authorities and furnishing reasons to the assessee, were complied with. The Court held that the power to reassess is intended to prevent wilful misstatements and ensure true disclosure. The petitioner's objections were dismissed, confirming the legality of the reassessment proceedings and affirming the absence of any bar to reopening under the amended provisions effective from 01.04.1989.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.