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...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
u/s 263, the AO had not made any addition regarding cash deposits in the assessee company's bank account and unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, which was the basis for reopening the case u/s 147. The AO was divested of jurisdiction to make further independent additions/disallowances. The CIT could not hold the reassessment order erroneous for failing to verify independent issues. The CIT's jurisdiction u/s 263 is limited to the subject matter of reassessment. If distinct, the limitation period for section 263 starts from the original assessment order date. The CIT exceeded jurisdiction by revising the order regarding share capital/premium and unsecured loans, as these did not form the reassessment subject matter u/s 147. Hence, the CIT's revision order u/s 263 was struck down, favoring the assessee.
u/s 263, the AO had not made any addition regarding cash deposits in the assessee company's bank account and unsecured loan received during the year under consideration, which was the basis for reopening the case u/s 147. The AO was divested of jurisdiction to make further independent additions/disallowances. The CIT could not hold the reassessment order erroneous for failing to verify independent issues. The CIT's jurisdiction u/s 263 is limited to the subject matter of reassessment. If distinct, the limitation period for section 263 starts from the original assessment order date. The CIT exceeded jurisdiction by revising the order regarding share capital/premium and unsecured loans, as these did not form the reassessment subject matter u/s 147. Hence, the CIT's revision order u/s 263 was struck down, favoring the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
