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...
In light of the search material, the course of action should have been taken u/s 153C instead of Section 148. The Assessing Officer erred in invoking reassessment proceedings u/s 147, rendering the subsequent actions without jurisdiction, as per the judgments in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and Badal Prakash Jindal. The revenue failed to prove that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial, as the PCIT could not establish non-application of mind, considering the Assessing Officer had examined the order of Kapil Romanna. Mere allegation of passing an order without application of mind is insufficient to invoke Section 263. The PCIT's findings and observations are infirm and perverse. Consequently, invoking Section 263 is not a fit case, and the order passed under it is quashed, favoring the assessee.
In light of the search material, the course of action should have been taken u/s 153C instead of Section 148. The Assessing Officer erred in invoking reassessment proceedings u/s 147, rendering the subsequent actions without jurisdiction, as per the judgments in Sri Dinakara Suvarna and Badal Prakash Jindal. The revenue failed to prove that the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial, as the PCIT could not establish non-application of mind, considering the Assessing Officer had examined the order of Kapil Romanna. Mere allegation of passing an order without application of mind is insufficient to invoke Section 263. The PCIT's findings and observations are infirm and perverse. Consequently, invoking Section 263 is not a fit case, and the order passed under it is quashed, favoring the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
