Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the AO possessed sufficient material to initiate reassessment proceedings under s.148 read with s.148A(1) and to frame an order under s.143A(3); the impugned action was taken pursuant to information generated under the CBDT's Risk Management Strategy recognised by s.148(3)(i). The court rejected the AO's inference that liquidation of a counterparty (hereinafter "Entity X") amounted to proof of a bogus concern, noting that subsequent acquisition of Entity X evidenced commercial legitimacy and that liquidation alone cannot justify a presumption of sham transactions. It was also noted that no complaint of denial of hearing under s.148A(1) was made.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the AO possessed sufficient material to initiate reassessment proceedings under s.148 read with s.148A(1) and to frame an order under s.143A(3); the impugned action was taken pursuant to information generated under the CBDT's Risk Management Strategy recognised by s.148(3)(i). The court rejected the AO's inference that liquidation of a counterparty (hereinafter "Entity X") amounted to proof of a bogus concern, noting that subsequent acquisition of Entity X evidenced commercial legitimacy and that liquidation alone cannot justify a presumption of sham transactions. It was also noted that no complaint of denial of hearing under s.148A(1) was made.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
