Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding genuineness of loan transactions for property acquisition. Bank statements revealed assessee lacked funds, payments made through loans from two parties. AO accepted evidence without verification, neglecting examination of interest payment, TDS deduction on loans. AO's lack of inquiry rendered order erroneous, prejudicial to revenue interests, justifying CIT's revision u/s 263. Non-application of mind, incorrect assumptions or law application by AO makes order erroneous, prejudicial, validating CIT's revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. Decided against assessee.
AO failed to conduct proper inquiries regarding genuineness of loan transactions for property acquisition. Bank statements revealed assessee lacked funds, payments made through loans from two parties. AO accepted evidence without verification, neglecting examination of interest payment, TDS deduction on loans. AO's lack of inquiry rendered order erroneous, prejudicial to revenue interests, justifying CIT's revision u/s 263. Non-application of mind, incorrect assumptions or law application by AO makes order erroneous, prejudicial, validating CIT's revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. Decided against assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
