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...
A scrutiny notice issued without established prior administrative approval was held void ab initio, and the resulting assessment under section 143(3) was annulled for want of jurisdiction. Additions based on third-party seized material also failed because the Assessing Officer had not recorded the requisite satisfaction with competent approval, so the statutory jurisdictional preconditions were not met. The first appellate authority exceeded its power by converting an unexplained-money addition into a trading addition and by introducing a new basis of assessment. Alleged suppressed sales, unexplained money, unaccounted purchases, and estimated unexplained expenditure were deleted because the loose papers were uncorroborated, cross-examination weakened the nexus, and section 69C was applied on conjecture rather than proof.
A scrutiny notice issued without established prior administrative approval was held void ab initio, and the resulting assessment under section 143(3) was annulled for want of jurisdiction. Additions based on third-party seized material also failed because the Assessing Officer had not recorded the requisite satisfaction with competent approval, so the statutory jurisdictional preconditions were not met. The first appellate authority exceeded its power by converting an unexplained-money addition into a trading addition and by introducing a new basis of assessment. Alleged suppressed sales, unexplained money, unaccounted purchases, and estimated unexplained expenditure were deleted because the loose papers were uncorroborated, cross-examination weakened the nexus, and section 69C was applied on conjecture rather than proof.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
