Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The assessment order passed u/s 153C was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC instead of Section 271(1)(c). The order lacked recording of satisfaction that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Without such satisfaction recorded, the Principal Commissioner's revision u/s 263 is untenable, as per the Madras High Court's decision in Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. The authorities can levy penalty u/s 271(1) during assessment proceedings, but the revisionary power u/s 263 cannot be exercised to direct penalty initiation, creating uncertainty. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court's decisions in Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. and C.R.K. Swamy, setting aside the impugned revision order due to the absence of a finding on concealment or inaccurate particulars. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The assessment order passed u/s 153C was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC instead of Section 271(1)(c). The order lacked recording of satisfaction that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Without such satisfaction recorded, the Principal Commissioner's revision u/s 263 is untenable, as per the Madras High Court's decision in Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. The authorities can levy penalty u/s 271(1) during assessment proceedings, but the revisionary power u/s 263 cannot be exercised to direct penalty initiation, creating uncertainty. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court's decisions in Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. and C.R.K. Swamy, setting aside the impugned revision order due to the absence of a finding on concealment or inaccurate particulars. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
