https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432321 The court upheld the respondent's order for re-assessment under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner's challenge based on the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was rejected, emphasizing the need to prove the nature and place of services rendered. The court clarified that an order under Section 143(1) does not preclude re-assessment and highlighted the petitioner's failure to provide evidence of similar services in different assessment years. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition and application, emphasizing the importance of satisfying the Assessing Officer to avoid re-assessment. en-us Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jan 2023 14:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432321 The court upheld the respondent's order for re-assessment under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The petitioner's challenge based on the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement was rejected, emphasizing the need to prove the nature and place of services rendered. The court clarified that an order under Section 143(1) does not preclude re-assessment and highlighted the petitioner's failure to provide evidence of similar services in different assessment years. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition and application, emphasizing the importance of satisfying the Assessing Officer to avoid re-assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432321