Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
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 
