Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Page of 4921
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 98411 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4921 
