Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 95714 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.