Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
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.