International transaction characterisation of domestic divestment of support services business rejected; transaction between resident associated enter...
Minimum Import Price restrictions for Black Pepper, Areca-nuts and Apples upheld; procedural laying failure not fatal, notifications to be placed befo...
Transaction value between related persons requires market-equivalent pricing; importer must prove declared value mirrors ordinary international trade ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6841 to 6860 of 96262 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.