Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.