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...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
