Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - AO's omission to frame draft assessment order u/s 144C - An action made without jurisdiction and ergo the assessment order dated 25.09.2017 is null in the eyes of law and therefore, is non est. Therefore, when the foundation itself does not exist, i.e., assessment order dated 25.09.2017 is non-est, the Ld. PCIT could not have exercised his jurisdiction to interfere with void/null order which is not existing in the eyes of law and, therefore, the impugned order of Ld. PCIT is also a nullity. - AT
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - AO's omission to frame draft assessment order u/s 144C - An action made without jurisdiction and ergo the assessment order dated 25.09.2017 is null in the eyes of law and therefore, is non est. Therefore, when the foundation itself does not exist, i.e., assessment order dated 25.09.2017 is non-est, the Ld. PCIT could not have exercised his jurisdiction to interfere with void/null order which is not existing in the eyes of law and, therefore, the impugned order of Ld. PCIT is also a nullity. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.