PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reopening an assessment beyond the four year period is...
Reopening assessments beyond four years requires nondisclosure of material facts; mere change of opinion or general allegations invalidates reassessment.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Reopening an assessment beyond the four year period is impermissible unless the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts; here the taxpayer had disclosed investments, dividend receipts and redemptions, so the proviso to the reopening power was not satisfied and the reassessment represents a change of opinion. The reopening notice contained general, inconsistent allegations about dividend stripping without specific material showing the assessee's knowing participation. The AO's recorded reason (fictitious short term loss) differs from the final treatment (treating dividend as unexplained credit), so reassessment cannot be sustained; accepted transactions preclude treating dividend as unexplained cash credit.
Reopening an assessment beyond the four year period is impermissible unless the assessee failed to fully and truly disclose material facts; here the taxpayer had disclosed investments, dividend receipts and redemptions, so the proviso to the reopening power was not satisfied and the reassessment represents a change of opinion. The reopening notice contained general, inconsistent allegations about dividend stripping without specific material showing the assessee's knowing participation. The AO's recorded reason (fictitious short term loss) differs from the final treatment (treating dividend as unexplained credit), so reassessment cannot be sustained; accepted transactions preclude treating dividend as unexplained cash credit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.