Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
