Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The High Court considered a revision u/s 264 where the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) dismissed the application without proper procedural fairness. The petitioner claimed no prior notice or opportunity to respond was given. The Court found the order lacked fairness as the petitioner's representation was not considered, and no reason was given for denying an adjournment. The order did not explain the basis for upholding the Assessing Officer's decision. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to natural justice principles. The impugned order was set aside, and a rehearing was directed with the petitioner required to appear before the Pr. CIT on a specified date.
The High Court considered a revision u/s 264 where the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) dismissed the application without proper procedural fairness. The petitioner claimed no prior notice or opportunity to respond was given. The Court found the order lacked fairness as the petitioner's representation was not considered, and no reason was given for denying an adjournment. The order did not explain the basis for upholding the Assessing Officer's decision. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to natural justice principles. The impugned order was set aside, and a rehearing was directed with the petitioner required to appear before the Pr. CIT on a specified date.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
