The action for reassessment which was commenced pursuant to the Section 148A(b) notice dated 27 May 2022 could not be countenanced and was liable to be quashed as there were no reasons underlying the formation of opinion that income had escaped assessment.
Notices issued to the respective banks attaching the accounts of the assessee maintained with them was valid as assessee did not file returns on time under Rule 7 of the TNVAT Rules, 2007, or submit complete returns for the assessment years, therefore, the deemed assessment passed under Section 22(4) of the TNVAT Act should be considered as the first assessment and the limitation for reopening the Assessment under Section 27 of the TNVAT Act, 2006 would apply only six years thereafter.
Clubbing of clearance values of proprietorship and Pvt Ltd Company for the purpose Excise Duty Assessment was remanded back to Tribunal on the basis of the principle as to whether the order assailed suffered from perversity or not.
Since upon the completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), assessee had changed hands and commenced under a new ownership and management, the Bombay High Court held that tax proceedings pertain to period prior to the CIRP, and consequent to the approval of the resolution plan, the tax proceedings stood extinguished.
Tribunal upheld 20% addition instead of 25% on alleged bogus purchases due to unverified sellers agreeing that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and confirmed penalty proceedings.
Liability to capital gains had not arisen in the assessment year 2017-18 as occupancy certificate was received on 01/02/2017 for commercial portion and 17/03/2017 for residential portion but in the assessment year 2018-19 on receipt of possession.
Assessee claimed that in section 14A, the disallowance of expenditure even if computed in accordance with Rule 8D could not exceed the exempt income earned in that year.
Distribution revenue received by Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific, Inc. ( TBSAP ), a U.S.-based company, from its Indian affiliate was not taxable as “royalty” under the Income Tax Act, 1961, or the India-U.S.
When assessee had both trade receivables and trade payables, it would be unreasonable to calculate interest only on trade receivables for the purpose of determining the ALP of the transaction. AO/ TPO was directed to consider both trade payables and trade receivables for the purpose of notional interest to be charged for determining the ALP value of the transaction.
Reopening of assessment was initiated before the lapse of four years, and there was no scope for interference with the Income Tax authorities’ reopening decision if escapement income was found.
