Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income-Tax, while exercising revisionary powers u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, is duty-bound to consider the revision petition on merits. The term 'record' in Section 264 should be interpreted broadly, as per the Central Board of Direct Taxes' circular. Consequently, the order u/s 144A should have been considered part of the record by the Commissioner while deciding the revision petition u/s 264. The impugned orders passed u/ss 264 and 154 were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Principal Commissioner to decide the revision petition u/s 264 on merits, considering the order u/s 144A as part of the record.
The High Court held that the Commissioner of Income-Tax, while exercising revisionary powers u/s 264 of the Income Tax Act, is duty-bound to consider the revision petition on merits. The term 'record' in Section 264 should be interpreted broadly, as per the Central Board of Direct Taxes' circular. Consequently, the order u/s 144A should have been considered part of the record by the Commissioner while deciding the revision petition u/s 264. The impugned orders passed u/ss 264 and 154 were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Principal Commissioner to decide the revision petition u/s 264 on merits, considering the order u/s 144A as part of the record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
