Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
A reassessment order cannot be revised under section 263 merely because the Principal Commissioner believes further inquiry was desirable, where the Assessing Officer had examined the recorded reasons issue, considered contract notes, bank statements, computation and audited accounts, and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to section 263 does not apply absent a finding that the reassessment was made without any enquiry or verification. The reassessment was therefore not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly assumed; the revision order was quashed.
A reassessment order cannot be revised under section 263 merely because the Principal Commissioner believes further inquiry was desirable, where the Assessing Officer had examined the recorded reasons issue, considered contract notes, bank statements, computation and audited accounts, and accepted the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal held that Explanation 2 to section 263 does not apply absent a finding that the reassessment was made without any enquiry or verification. The reassessment was therefore not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and the revisional jurisdiction was wrongly assumed; the revision order was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.