Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
881 to 900 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.