Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the reassessment order suffered from a complete lack of inquiry on the purchase-side taxability of the difference between immovable property consideration and stamp duty value. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer examined the sale-side valuation issue but failed to consider the applicable provision for the purchase transaction, instead referring to section 56(2)(x), which was not relevant to the assessment year. This non-application of mind on a material issue made the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. As the Principal Commissioner only set aside the matter for fresh verification after granting the assessee an opportunity, the revisionary jurisdiction was valid.
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the reassessment order suffered from a complete lack of inquiry on the purchase-side taxability of the difference between immovable property consideration and stamp duty value. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer examined the sale-side valuation issue but failed to consider the applicable provision for the purchase transaction, instead referring to section 56(2)(x), which was not relevant to the assessment year. This non-application of mind on a material issue made the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. As the Principal Commissioner only set aside the matter for fresh verification after granting the assessee an opportunity, the revisionary jurisdiction was valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
