Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The ITAT upheld the Revision u/s 263 by PCIT, finding the AO's assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. The unsigned assessment order in ITBA portal was deemed immaterial for invoking u/s 263. PCIT's direction for fresh assessment was justified as AO omitted to consider share profits. Proposed addition under u/s 69A was exempted u/s 10(2A) as firm was separately assessed. PCIT's direction on share of profit verification was upheld as no evidence showed it related to earlier years. PCIT's order was not cryptic and PCIT rightly found AO's assessment prejudicial to Revenue. The grounds challenging PCIT's decision were dismissed.
The ITAT upheld the Revision u/s 263 by PCIT, finding the AO's assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. The unsigned assessment order in ITBA portal was deemed immaterial for invoking u/s 263. PCIT's direction for fresh assessment was justified as AO omitted to consider share profits. Proposed addition under u/s 69A was exempted u/s 10(2A) as firm was separately assessed. PCIT's direction on share of profit verification was upheld as no evidence showed it related to earlier years. PCIT's order was not cryptic and PCIT rightly found AO's assessment prejudicial to Revenue. The grounds challenging PCIT's decision were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.