Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CIT(A) allowed assessee to withdraw appeal against section 263 revision order, stating Tribunal quashed section 263 order and CIT(A) erred in not deciding appeal merits. Revenue contended CIT(A) lacks power to allow withdrawal without deciding merits. CIT(A) discussed power u/s 251 to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul assessment while deciding appeal u/s 246A within section 251(1)(a) purview. CIT(A) relied on Bombay High Court decision holding withdrawal power not u/s 251(1)(a) and CIT(A) must decide merits. CIT(A) stated despite withdrawal application, appeal cannot be dismissed without merits examination. Since section 263 revisionary order quashed, consequential section 143(3) order would not survive legally, rightly held by CIT(A). No justification for Revenue's objection that appeal not dismissed based on withdrawal application, finding no merits in Revenue's grounds of appeal.
CIT(A) allowed assessee to withdraw appeal against section 263 revision order, stating Tribunal quashed section 263 order and CIT(A) erred in not deciding appeal merits. Revenue contended CIT(A) lacks power to allow withdrawal without deciding merits. CIT(A) discussed power u/s 251 to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul assessment while deciding appeal u/s 246A within section 251(1)(a) purview. CIT(A) relied on Bombay High Court decision holding withdrawal power not u/s 251(1)(a) and CIT(A) must decide merits. CIT(A) stated despite withdrawal application, appeal cannot be dismissed without merits examination. Since section 263 revisionary order quashed, consequential section 143(3) order would not survive legally, rightly held by CIT(A). No justification for Revenue's objection that appeal not dismissed based on withdrawal application, finding no merits in Revenue's grounds of appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
