Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Revision u/s 263 - Difference of opinion - Tribunal held that an assessment cannot be revised if there is no jurisdictional error in the order or if it has been passed after due application of mind or in case where PCIT has a view different from that taken by A.O. - Tribunal further observed that, both the ingredients i.e order must be erroneous in nature; and the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are present in a given case, it is not legally permissible for a Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceeding u/s 263
Revision u/s 263 - Difference of opinion - Tribunal held that an assessment cannot be revised if there is no jurisdictional error in the order or if it has been passed after due application of mind or in case where PCIT has a view different from that taken by A.O. - Tribunal further observed that, both the ingredients i.e order must be erroneous in nature; and the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are present in a given case, it is not legally permissible for a Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceeding u/s 263
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.