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" ?
The High Court considered a Revision u/s 264 where the CIT rejected the application due to delay, stating u/s 143(1) intimation was not revisable. The court declined to condone the delay, noting the tax department's inability to reassess due to limitation provisions. The appellant had initially declared profits as capital gains for certain years, benefiting from lower tax rates. The revenue's change in treating the profits as business income led to the revision petitions. The court found the delay unjustifiable, as the appellant waited until after the Appellate Authority's decision to file the revision petitions. Condoning the delay would unfairly advantage the appellant over the revenue. The Writ Appeal was dismissed in line with the Single Judge's decision.
The High Court considered a Revision u/s 264 where the CIT rejected the application due to delay, stating u/s 143(1) intimation was not revisable. The court declined to condone the delay, noting the tax department's inability to reassess due to limitation provisions. The appellant had initially declared profits as capital gains for certain years, benefiting from lower tax rates. The revenue's change in treating the profits as business income led to the revision petitions. The court found the delay unjustifiable, as the appellant waited until after the Appellate Authority's decision to file the revision petitions. Condoning the delay would unfairly advantage the appellant over the revenue. The Writ Appeal was dismissed in line with the Single Judge's decision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
