1

Commissioner (A) is not empowered to enhance income a new source of income vide 82ITR 9Trib) 176
1

It is assessee’s choice to select a method for determining FMV of shares vide 81 ITR (Trib) (SN) 78
1

No TP adjustment of trade receivables in case of a debt-free company vide 81ITR (Trib) (SN) 94
1

To accord registration as a charitable institution under income tax dominant purpose must be charitable and satisfies the conditions laid down us 2(15) vide 426ITR108 despite having non charitable ancillary objects meant to achieve the dominant purpose
1

Transactions with dubious entities is reason enough for case reopening vide 421ITR624

Jurisdiction/notice defect

ByCA Gopal Nathani

Nov 12, 2022

The High Court in [2022] 447 ITR 743 (Bom) reiterated that even if there was an order recording satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or on both grounds as mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the said Act, if the show- cause notice suffers from the vagueness the same would fail.

Thus it is essential that the show-cause notice issued to the assessee should be in accordance with law else it would not survive.

In this case penalty notice did not specify whether the assessee had concealed particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of the same hence the challenge.