Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2161 to 2180 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
In the ITAT Jaipur case, the issue revolved around a revision u/s 263 by CIT concerning the assessee's case under limited scrutiny u/s 143(3). The primary focus was on payments to specified persons and a percentage disallowance on salary payments. The tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and verified details submitted by the assessee, allowing the salary payments. The observations by the PCIT were based on a different assessment year, and a disallowance in one year cannot be the basis for doubting claims in another year. The tribunal concluded that the revision proceedings by the PCIT were beyond jurisdiction and against legal principles, quashing the order u/s 263 and allowing the assessee's appeal.
In the ITAT Jaipur case, the issue revolved around a revision u/s 263 by CIT concerning the assessee's case under limited scrutiny u/s 143(3). The primary focus was on payments to specified persons and a percentage disallowance on salary payments. The tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and verified details submitted by the assessee, allowing the salary payments. The observations by the PCIT were based on a different assessment year, and a disallowance in one year cannot be the basis for doubting claims in another year. The tribunal concluded that the revision proceedings by the PCIT were beyond jurisdiction and against legal principles, quashing the order u/s 263 and allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
