ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
HC held that reassessment initiated after the four-year period was invalid insofar as it rested solely on a change of opinion and not on tangible material demonstrating escapement of income. The court observed that once the appellant had discharged the duty to disclose material facts and an assessment was completed under s.143(3) following notices and inquiries under ss.142 and 143(2), the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment absent concealment or false declaration. Finding no evidence of nondisclosure or concealment, the HC answered the legal question in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned reassessment orders, obviating the need to adjudicate the s.80-IB/80HHC deduction issues.
HC held that reassessment initiated after the four-year period was invalid insofar as it rested solely on a change of opinion and not on tangible material demonstrating escapement of income. The court observed that once the appellant had discharged the duty to disclose material facts and an assessment was completed under s.143(3) following notices and inquiries under ss.142 and 143(2), the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment absent concealment or false declaration. Finding no evidence of nondisclosure or concealment, the HC answered the legal question in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned reassessment orders, obviating the need to adjudicate the s.80-IB/80HHC deduction issues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
