Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Reopening of assessment was upheld where the recorded reasons showed fresh tangible material from impounded documents and a director's statement, and the assessee had not fully disclosed the crucial Clause 7 entitlement to 35% of gross sale receipts; no earlier opinion on the receipt's true character had been formed, so change of opinion did not apply. The Court also held that reopening must stand or fall on the recorded reasons alone. On the merits, the assessee's 35% entitlement under the AOP agreement was not a share of profit, because it arose from gross receipts before project expenses and was diverted by overriding title; it was therefore taxable as business income.
Reopening of assessment was upheld where the recorded reasons showed fresh tangible material from impounded documents and a director's statement, and the assessee had not fully disclosed the crucial Clause 7 entitlement to 35% of gross sale receipts; no earlier opinion on the receipt's true character had been formed, so change of opinion did not apply. The Court also held that reopening must stand or fall on the recorded reasons alone. On the merits, the assessee's 35% entitlement under the AOP agreement was not a share of profit, because it arose from gross receipts before project expenses and was diverted by overriding title; it was therefore taxable as business income.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
