Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
The crux pertains to the inclusion of sale value of old rubber trees in computing book profit u/s 115JB. The Kerala High Court had previously ruled against the assessee in its own case for prior years, holding that the sale value should be included while computing book profit. Although the assessee challenged this before the Supreme Court, the High Court's decision remains binding until set aside. Consequently, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Section 154 to rectify the mistake of non-inclusion, as non-consideration of judicial precedents constitutes a valid ground for rectification u/s 154. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's action, rendering other grounds raised by the assessee redundant.
The crux pertains to the inclusion of sale value of old rubber trees in computing book profit u/s 115JB. The Kerala High Court had previously ruled against the assessee in its own case for prior years, holding that the sale value should be included while computing book profit. Although the assessee challenged this before the Supreme Court, the High Court's decision remains binding until set aside. Consequently, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked Section 154 to rectify the mistake of non-inclusion, as non-consideration of judicial precedents constitutes a valid ground for rectification u/s 154. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's action, rendering other grounds raised by the assessee redundant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
