Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The High Court held that the petitioner, a Director in the Government of Meghalaya's Department of Soil, who claimed exemption from income tax u/s 10(26) as a member of a scheduled tribe, should avail the structured remedy provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that as a writ court, it should not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon highly disputed facts involving voluminous evidence. The petitioner had filed an application for revision u/s 264 for the assessment year 2014-15, which she allegedly withdrew on June 9, 2022. The court set aside the alleged withdrawal and directed the income tax authorities to treat the Section 264 application as pending, hear the petitioner, respondent No. 9, and other interested parties, and dispose of the application by a reasoned order within three months. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for interim orders pending the Section 264 proceedings.
The High Court held that the petitioner, a Director in the Government of Meghalaya's Department of Soil, who claimed exemption from income tax u/s 10(26) as a member of a scheduled tribe, should avail the structured remedy provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that as a writ court, it should not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon highly disputed facts involving voluminous evidence. The petitioner had filed an application for revision u/s 264 for the assessment year 2014-15, which she allegedly withdrew on June 9, 2022. The court set aside the alleged withdrawal and directed the income tax authorities to treat the Section 264 application as pending, hear the petitioner, respondent No. 9, and other interested parties, and dispose of the application by a reasoned order within three months. The petitioner was given liberty to apply for interim orders pending the Section 264 proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
