Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
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 
