Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Issue of reassessment u/s 263, where the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) upheld the reassessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest for verification of transactions related to NSEL commodities and provision for bad debt claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decisions in Marico Ltd. and GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., which held that if a query was raised by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings and the assessee responded, it implies the AO accepted the assessee's submission. If the assessment order does not reflect consideration of the issue, it means no opinion was formed by the AO. In this case, the issues of NSEL transactions and bad debt provision were considered by the AO during the original and reassessment proceedings. The AO verified the complete facts and framed the assessment u/s 147 read with Section 144B after examining the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found no error in the reassessment order prejudicial to the Revenue's interest and quashed the CIT's revision order, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Issue of reassessment u/s 263, where the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) upheld the reassessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest for verification of transactions related to NSEL commodities and provision for bad debt claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decisions in Marico Ltd. and GKN Sinter Metals Ltd., which held that if a query was raised by the Assessing Officer (AO) during the assessment proceedings and the assessee responded, it implies the AO accepted the assessee's submission. If the assessment order does not reflect consideration of the issue, it means no opinion was formed by the AO. In this case, the issues of NSEL transactions and bad debt provision were considered by the AO during the original and reassessment proceedings. The AO verified the complete facts and framed the assessment u/s 147 read with Section 144B after examining the details provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found no error in the reassessment order prejudicial to the Revenue's interest and quashed the CIT's revision order, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
