Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
