Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
