Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96509 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Scope of rectification of mistake - The case revolved around the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The key contention was whether the AO was justified in exercising rectification powers under Section 154 due to conflicting judgments and the absence of a clear error apparent on record. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the AO's action was not justified as the issue was debatable and there was no clear error evident at the time of the original assessment.
Scope of rectification of mistake - The case revolved around the disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The key contention was whether the AO was justified in exercising rectification powers under Section 154 due to conflicting judgments and the absence of a clear error apparent on record. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the AO's action was not justified as the issue was debatable and there was no clear error evident at the time of the original assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
