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 - The argument of the petitioner that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore the proceeding under Section 263 was liable to be quashed cannot be countenanced. A proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be scuttled. Further, the petitioner participated in the proceeding initiated under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around to state that the proceeding was without jurisdiction. - HC
Revision u/s 263 - The argument of the petitioner that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore the proceeding under Section 263 was liable to be quashed cannot be countenanced. A proceeding under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be scuttled. Further, the petitioner participated in the proceeding initiated under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around to state that the proceeding was without jurisdiction. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
