Anti-profiteering obligations survive business demerger, complaint withdrawal, and customized supply arrangements where rate-reduction benefits are no...
Road restoration charges constitute taxable services when requested for commercial pipeline activity, requiring reverse-charge GST from the business r...
Interest on delayed release of requisitioned cash includes statutory pre-assessment interest and restitutionary compensation for unlawful post-assessm...
Incomplete inventory records justify rejecting accounts, while profit estimation requires relevant comparable material and interest falls under other ...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires functional alignment; delayed associated-enterprise receivables need separate LIBOR-based benchmarking, while ...
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.