Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reopening based on information from the Investigation Wing was invalid because the recorded reasons showed only suspicion and a request for scrutiny, not an independent reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that borrowed satisfaction, without the Assessing Officer's own enquiry or a live link between material and escapement, could not sustain reassessment. It also held that assessment could not stand because no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued for the relevant assessment year; a notice for a different year was not a curable typographical error. The reassessment and assessment order were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Reopening based on information from the Investigation Wing was invalid because the recorded reasons showed only suspicion and a request for scrutiny, not an independent reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal held that borrowed satisfaction, without the Assessing Officer's own enquiry or a live link between material and escapement, could not sustain reassessment. It also held that assessment could not stand because no valid notice under section 143(2) was issued for the relevant assessment year; a notice for a different year was not a curable typographical error. The reassessment and assessment order were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.