Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 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 Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of assessment proceedings under Sec 153A where the approval process under Sec 153D was not followed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the approval granted lacked proper consideration of factual and legal aspects, being a mere formality without actual supervision by the sanctioning authority. The Tribunal found a similar issue favorably adjudicated in the assessee's own case for another assessment year, where the lack of propriety in such approvals was acknowledged. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment order for the year in question, based on a deficient approval process, lacked enforceability in law and was therefore quashed in favor of the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of assessment proceedings under Sec 153A where the approval process under Sec 153D was not followed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the approval granted lacked proper consideration of factual and legal aspects, being a mere formality without actual supervision by the sanctioning authority. The Tribunal found a similar issue favorably adjudicated in the assessee's own case for another assessment year, where the lack of propriety in such approvals was acknowledged. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the assessment order for the year in question, based on a deficient approval process, lacked enforceability in law and was therefore quashed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.