Reassessment sanction under extended limitation required approval from the competent specified authority, invalidating proceedings approved by an inco...
Internal CUP benchmarking for fixed-rate Masala Bonds prevails over floating external comparables, eliminating the related transfer-pricing adjustment...
Jurisdictional validity of revision notices: incorrect official capacity and mere change of opinion invalidate revision of property income assessments...
Bogus-purchase additions are limited to embedded profit where corresponding sales are accepted, while accommodation-entry information can support reas...
Page of 4915
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1661 to 1680 of 98288 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC set aside the reassessment proceedings and quashed the sanction under section 151 insofar as they pertain to the Petitioner, holding that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court found the asserted "reasons to believe" unsupported by cogent material: the investigation report did not list the Petitioner as a beneficiary of accommodation entries and the contested transactions were sales proceeds already offered to tax. The reasons recorded misidentified another assessee and, together with uncorrected supervisory review, demonstrated a mechanical, non-application of mind in granting sanction. Consequently, reopening was held invalid and the Petitioner succeeded.
HC set aside the reassessment proceedings and quashed the sanction under section 151 insofar as they pertain to the Petitioner, holding that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The court found the asserted "reasons to believe" unsupported by cogent material: the investigation report did not list the Petitioner as a beneficiary of accommodation entries and the contested transactions were sales proceeds already offered to tax. The reasons recorded misidentified another assessee and, together with uncorrected supervisory review, demonstrated a mechanical, non-application of mind in granting sanction. Consequently, reopening was held invalid and the Petitioner succeeded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.