Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The assessee was allowed deduction u/s 54/54F without proper examination of relevant details and materials. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment u/s 143(3) after considering the details of assets sold and cost of acquisition, allowing the deduction u/s 54F. The assessee furnished investment details and bills/vouchers in response to the notice u/s 142(1). The AO/NFAC, after examining the relevant details, concluded on the allowability of deduction u/s 54F. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) noted that the assessee furnished investment details of a huge amount, out of which deduction was claimed without specifying the expenses against which Section 54F deduction was claimed. However, it cannot be said that there was no enquiry or inadequate enquiry regarding the Section 54F exemption. The notice u/s 263 issued by the PCIT was vague and aimed at making deeper enquiry and re-considering the evidence already on record, claiming fresh facts emerged subsequent to the assessment order, which was factually incorrect and untenable. The conditions enabling the PCIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 were not satisfied. The PCIT's discretionary power u/s 263 cannot be assumed arbitrarily, and something should be brought on record to show the error and prejudice to revenue caused by.
The assessee was allowed deduction u/s 54/54F without proper examination of relevant details and materials. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment u/s 143(3) after considering the details of assets sold and cost of acquisition, allowing the deduction u/s 54F. The assessee furnished investment details and bills/vouchers in response to the notice u/s 142(1). The AO/NFAC, after examining the relevant details, concluded on the allowability of deduction u/s 54F. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) noted that the assessee furnished investment details of a huge amount, out of which deduction was claimed without specifying the expenses against which Section 54F deduction was claimed. However, it cannot be said that there was no enquiry or inadequate enquiry regarding the Section 54F exemption. The notice u/s 263 issued by the PCIT was vague and aimed at making deeper enquiry and re-considering the evidence already on record, claiming fresh facts emerged subsequent to the assessment order, which was factually incorrect and untenable. The conditions enabling the PCIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 were not satisfied. The PCIT's discretionary power u/s 263 cannot be assumed arbitrarily, and something should be brought on record to show the error and prejudice to revenue caused by.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
