Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Revision u/s 263 - The principal of the law emanating that when two views are legally possible and AO adopts one view the Assessment Order cannot be said to be erroneous for the CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. In this case the AO has taken one of the possible Legal View. Hence, the Assessment Order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. - AT
Revision u/s 263 - The principal of the law emanating that when two views are legally possible and AO adopts one view the Assessment Order cannot be said to be erroneous for the CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. In this case the AO has taken one of the possible Legal View. Hence, the Assessment Order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.