Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous" - Since the submissions/explanations were found to be satisfactory, no further information was called from the assessee which is also evident from the fact that the returned loss has been accepted by taking note of the fact that the project was in preliminary stage and the assessee has not sold any flat during the year under consideration but received mere advances. In view of the foregoing, it could be concluded that the view of Ld. AO, could not be said to be contrary to law, in any manner, on both the issues as alleged by Ld. Pr. CIT. There was proper application of mind by Ld. AO on both the issues. - AT
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous" - Since the submissions/explanations were found to be satisfactory, no further information was called from the assessee which is also evident from the fact that the returned loss has been accepted by taking note of the fact that the project was in preliminary stage and the assessee has not sold any flat during the year under consideration but received mere advances. In view of the foregoing, it could be concluded that the view of Ld. AO, could not be said to be contrary to law, in any manner, on both the issues as alleged by Ld. Pr. CIT. There was proper application of mind by Ld. AO on both the issues. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
