Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Reopening an assessment requires contemporaneous reasons to believe supported by tangible material and a live link to escapement of income; a mere recalculation of full value of consideration using lowest prevailing market value or a change of opinion is insufficient. The taxpayer had already provided stock valuation details and basis in response to queries under section 142(1), and the subsequent communications did not disclose fresh tangible material or a live link justifying reassessment under section 147. The impugned reopening notices were therefore held to lack jurisdiction and were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Reopening an assessment requires contemporaneous reasons to believe supported by tangible material and a live link to escapement of income; a mere recalculation of full value of consideration using lowest prevailing market value or a change of opinion is insufficient. The taxpayer had already provided stock valuation details and basis in response to queries under section 142(1), and the subsequent communications did not disclose fresh tangible material or a live link justifying reassessment under section 147. The impugned reopening notices were therefore held to lack jurisdiction and were quashed in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.