Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
