Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment validity depended on two jurisdictional defects: the sanction under section 151 was held invalid because the escapement figure shifted from Rs. 1,11,37,000 to Rs. 66,13,961 and then to Rs. 27,00,000, showing non-application of mind at the sanction stage. The Tribunal also held that reopening beyond three years was unsustainable because the surviving alleged escapement was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended limitation under section 149(1). On these grounds, the reassessment was held untenable and the remaining issues were left open.
Reassessment validity depended on two jurisdictional defects: the sanction under section 151 was held invalid because the escapement figure shifted from Rs. 1,11,37,000 to Rs. 66,13,961 and then to Rs. 27,00,000, showing non-application of mind at the sanction stage. The Tribunal also held that reopening beyond three years was unsustainable because the surviving alleged escapement was below the Rs. 50 lakh threshold required for extended limitation under section 149(1). On these grounds, the reassessment was held untenable and the remaining issues were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
