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...
The HC quashed reassessment initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year because it was based only on material already on record and showed no new tangible material. As the original assessment had been completed under Section 143(3), the first proviso to Section 147 required the Revenue to show that escaped income arose from the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The recorded reasons contained only a bald assertion and did not identify any such failure. Reopening on the same material after the claim had already been examined was an impermissible change of opinion, so the notice under Section 148, the orders rejecting objections, and all consequential proceedings were set aside.
The HC quashed reassessment initiated beyond four years from the end of the assessment year because it was based only on material already on record and showed no new tangible material. As the original assessment had been completed under Section 143(3), the first proviso to Section 147 required the Revenue to show that escaped income arose from the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts. The recorded reasons contained only a bald assertion and did not identify any such failure. Reopening on the same material after the claim had already been examined was an impermissible change of opinion, so the notice under Section 148, the orders rejecting objections, and all consequential proceedings were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
