Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessing officer against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Tribunal had deleted the additions made by the assessing officer after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and making an ex-parte assessment u/s 144. The Court observed that the Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, had dealt with all grounds raised by the appellant in a well-reasoned order based on the material on record. The Court stated that a finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law if it is based on no evidence, relevant admissible evidence is not considered, inadmissible evidence is taken into account, or legal principles are not applied in appreciating the evidence. However, in this case, the appellant had merely disputed the factual findings of the Tribunal under the guise of substantial questions of law, which is not permitted by the statute. The Court held that no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arose from the Tribunal's order, and there was no merit in the appeal.
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessing officer against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, holding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. The Tribunal had deleted the additions made by the assessing officer after rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee u/s 145(3) and making an ex-parte assessment u/s 144. The Court observed that the Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, had dealt with all grounds raised by the appellant in a well-reasoned order based on the material on record. The Court stated that a finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law if it is based on no evidence, relevant admissible evidence is not considered, inadmissible evidence is taken into account, or legal principles are not applied in appreciating the evidence. However, in this case, the appellant had merely disputed the factual findings of the Tribunal under the guise of substantial questions of law, which is not permitted by the statute. The Court held that no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arose from the Tribunal's order, and there was no merit in the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
