Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Reopening after four years was invalid because the recorded reasons did not a failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts in the original scrutiny assessment. The AO had already sought details of unsecured loans and the assessee had furnished confirmations before assessment under Section 143(3) was completed without addition on that issue. The reasons for reopening merely referred to survey information about bogus unsecured loans from shell companies, but did not identify the loans, entities, or connecting material. Such vague reasons could not be supplemented later through objections, a rejection order, or a subsequent notice. The Section 148 notice was quashed.
Reopening after four years was invalid because the recorded reasons did not a failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts in the original scrutiny assessment. The AO had already sought details of unsecured loans and the assessee had furnished confirmations before assessment under Section 143(3) was completed without addition on that issue. The reasons for reopening merely referred to survey information about bogus unsecured loans from shell companies, but did not identify the loans, entities, or connecting material. Such vague reasons could not be supplemented later through objections, a rejection order, or a subsequent notice. The Section 148 notice was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.