Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Third-party loose sheets require reliable nexus before supporting unexplained expenditure additions; presumptions do not establish payer identity or o...
TNMM comparability using audited accounts and working-capital adjustments can eliminate unwarranted transfer-pricing additions where verified margins ...
Gross-profit additions on disputed purchases require reasoned appellate determination; disclosed claims alone do not support inaccurate-particulars pe...
Limitation after transfer-pricing remand: fresh TPO reference did not extend the assessment deadline, rendering the consequential assessment time-barr...
Interim judicial restraint on tax deduction prevents default, while supporting reasonable cause and penalty deletion for foreign-leg LFC reimbursement...
Page of 4915
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 98288 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reassessment of a section 80JJAA deduction cannot rest solely on a change of opinion where the deduction was specifically examined and accepted during the original scrutiny assessment. Employee, cost and supporting details had been furnished for the original assessment, while the reopening notice and the order under section 148A(d) identified no fresh tangible material indicating income escapement. The reassessment proceedings were therefore invalidated as a review of material already considered, and the section 148 notice and section 148A(d) order were quashed.
Reassessment of a section 80JJAA deduction cannot rest solely on a change of opinion where the deduction was specifically examined and accepted during the original scrutiny assessment. Employee, cost and supporting details had been furnished for the original assessment, while the reopening notice and the order under section 148A(d) identified no fresh tangible material indicating income escapement. The reassessment proceedings were therefore invalidated as a review of material already considered, and the section 148 notice and section 148A(d) order were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.