Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of Revision u/s 263 - An order which is prejudicial to revenue even if no Tax Loss - The High Court found that the AO's assessment did not adequately address the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions from certain entities, identified in a DDIT investigation report as shell companies operated by an entry operator. This oversight was deemed a significant inquiry lapse, rendering the assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. - The Court underscored the principle that an order could be deemed erroneous if it was prejudicial to the Revenue, even if it did not result in immediate tax loss, reflecting a broader interpretation aimed at preserving the Revenue's interests.
Validity of Revision u/s 263 - An order which is prejudicial to revenue even if no Tax Loss - The High Court found that the AO's assessment did not adequately address the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan transactions from certain entities, identified in a DDIT investigation report as shell companies operated by an entry operator. This oversight was deemed a significant inquiry lapse, rendering the assessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. - The Court underscored the principle that an order could be deemed erroneous if it was prejudicial to the Revenue, even if it did not result in immediate tax loss, reflecting a broader interpretation aimed at preserving the Revenue's interests.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
