<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (4) TMI 845 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258964</link>
    <description>For reassessment notices issued beyond four years, section 147 read with section 148 requires reasons to believe that income escaped assessment due to the assessee&#039;s failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The note records that disclosed audit material and accounts showed the remittances, but did not disclose the material fact that the foreign payee had a permanent establishment in India and that the payments could be taxable in India. On that basis, the reopening jurisdiction was treated as having a live nexus with the recorded reasons, while transfer pricing and India-Korea DTAA issues were considered premature at the notice stage and left for reassessment proceedings. The reopening notice and objection order were upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2015 16:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 845 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258964</link>
      <description>For reassessment notices issued beyond four years, section 147 read with section 148 requires reasons to believe that income escaped assessment due to the assessee&#039;s failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. The note records that disclosed audit material and accounts showed the remittances, but did not disclose the material fact that the foreign payee had a permanent establishment in India and that the payments could be taxable in India. On that basis, the reopening jurisdiction was treated as having a live nexus with the recorded reasons, while transfer pricing and India-Korea DTAA issues were considered premature at the notice stage and left for reassessment proceedings. The reopening notice and objection order were upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>