Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
