Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was not available where the assessment in limited scrutiny was completed after the assessee disclosed the survey declaration and responded to section 142(1) notices, and the Assessing Officer considered those materials. Applying Malabar Industrial and Arvind Jewellers, revision lies only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; a mere difference of opinion on the same material is insufficient. On the facts found, no such error was shown, so the Tribunal was right to quash the revisional order and no substantial question of law arose.
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was not available where the assessment in limited scrutiny was completed after the assessee disclosed the survey declaration and responded to section 142(1) notices, and the Assessing Officer considered those materials. Applying Malabar Industrial and Arvind Jewellers, revision lies only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; a mere difference of opinion on the same material is insufficient. On the facts found, no such error was shown, so the Tribunal was right to quash the revisional order and no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.