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 u/s. 147 was invalid because the AO relied only on unspecified "information" from an internal portal without furnishing the actual material or reasons to the assessee, thereby failing to demonstrate subjective satisfaction or provide the basis for reopening. The AO did not correlate the undisclosed information with the assessee's transactions nor elicit statements based on that information. Consequently, additions u/s. 68 were untenable: the assessee produced purchase particulars, demat records and exchange sale documents which the AO neither controverted nor discredited in the assessment order. For these reasons the ITAT set aside the reopening and allowed the assessee's appeal.
ITAT held that the reopening of assessment u/s. 147 was invalid because the AO relied only on unspecified "information" from an internal portal without furnishing the actual material or reasons to the assessee, thereby failing to demonstrate subjective satisfaction or provide the basis for reopening. The AO did not correlate the undisclosed information with the assessee's transactions nor elicit statements based on that information. Consequently, additions u/s. 68 were untenable: the assessee produced purchase particulars, demat records and exchange sale documents which the AO neither controverted nor discredited in the assessment order. For these reasons the ITAT set aside the reopening and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.