Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impe...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3261 to 3280 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Jurisdiction for notice under section 148 was tested on the material available when proceedings began, not on the income ultimately assessed. The Tribunal held that section 149(1)(b) permitted notice beyond three years where the Assessing Officer possessed books, documents or evidence indicating income represented in the form of an asset and likely to meet the statutory threshold. Cash withdrawals exceeding Rs. 1.50 crores, together with non-filing of a return, constituted tangible material for a prima facie view that the threshold was satisfied. The assessee's time-bar objection failed, and the reassessment notice was upheld as valid.
Jurisdiction for notice under section 148 was tested on the material available when proceedings began, not on the income ultimately assessed. The Tribunal held that section 149(1)(b) permitted notice beyond three years where the Assessing Officer possessed books, documents or evidence indicating income represented in the form of an asset and likely to meet the statutory threshold. Cash withdrawals exceeding Rs. 1.50 crores, together with non-filing of a return, constituted tangible material for a prima facie view that the threshold was satisfied. The assessee's time-bar objection failed, and the reassessment notice was upheld as valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
