Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
