Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The assessee, a university, claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) for the relevant assessment year, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the applicable laws and facts. The AO included interest income on government grants in calculating the government financing, which exceeded 50% of the total income, meeting the substantial financing threshold. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(E)] invoked Section 263, revising the AO's order as prejudicial to revenue, by excluding interest income and applying Rule 2BBB retrospectively. The Appellate Tribunal held that the AO correctly allowed the exemption based on the prevailing legal framework, judicial precedents, and facts. The exclusion of interest income and retrospective application of Rule 2BBB by the CIT(E) were incorrect. The AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. Accordingly, the CIT(E)'s order invoking Section 263 was quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed, upholding the principle of consistency and the AO's decision to grant exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab).
The assessee, a university, claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) for the relevant assessment year, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer (AO) after considering the applicable laws and facts. The AO included interest income on government grants in calculating the government financing, which exceeded 50% of the total income, meeting the substantial financing threshold. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(E)] invoked Section 263, revising the AO's order as prejudicial to revenue, by excluding interest income and applying Rule 2BBB retrospectively. The Appellate Tribunal held that the AO correctly allowed the exemption based on the prevailing legal framework, judicial precedents, and facts. The exclusion of interest income and retrospective application of Rule 2BBB by the CIT(E) were incorrect. The AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue. Accordingly, the CIT(E)'s order invoking Section 263 was quashed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed, upholding the principle of consistency and the AO's decision to grant exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.