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...
ITAT held that the reopening of assessment under s.147 was invalid where the AO sat on information from the Investigation Wing for over four years and did not satisfy conditions of the first proviso to s.147 before issuing notice; the assessee had fully disclosed purchases in the return filed u/s 139(1) and produced delivery challans, receipts and particulars of subsequent sales, and there was no legal obligation to furnish third-party confirmations at that stage. The reassessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 and the ad hoc profit enhancement were quashed as bad in law, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
ITAT held that the reopening of assessment under s.147 was invalid where the AO sat on information from the Investigation Wing for over four years and did not satisfy conditions of the first proviso to s.147 before issuing notice; the assessee had fully disclosed purchases in the return filed u/s 139(1) and produced delivery challans, receipts and particulars of subsequent sales, and there was no legal obligation to furnish third-party confirmations at that stage. The reassessment framed u/s 143(3)/147 and the ad hoc profit enhancement were quashed as bad in law, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.