Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
For reopening beyond three years, the statutory threshold under section 149(1)(b) must be met by material showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. The Tribunal held that the reopening was initiated on incorrect or non-existing portal information, because the assessment ultimately treated only Rs. 17,17,597 as unexplained after verification and explanation by the assessee. As the case did not satisfy the extended-limitation condition, it fell within section 149(1)(a) and the notice under section 148 issued beyond three years was invalid. The consequential reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B was quashed as void ab initio.
For reopening beyond three years, the statutory threshold under section 149(1)(b) must be met by material showing escaped income of Rs. 50 lakhs or more. The Tribunal held that the reopening was initiated on incorrect or non-existing portal information, because the assessment ultimately treated only Rs. 17,17,597 as unexplained after verification and explanation by the assessee. As the case did not satisfy the extended-limitation condition, it fell within section 149(1)(a) and the notice under section 148 issued beyond three years was invalid. The consequential reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B was quashed as void ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.