Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT held that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for disallowance u/s 40A(3) and addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 was not sustainable. The Tribunal observed that merely not mentioning the annexures or not asking for details does not render the order prejudicial or erroneous. The assessee's submissions regarding jurisdiction were not dealt with by the revenue. The Principal Commissioner did not invoke Explanation 2 to Section 263 to substantiate her view that the order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the Principal Commissioner's view without establishing how the order was erroneous or prejudicial.
The ITAT held that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act for disallowance u/s 40A(3) and addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 was not sustainable. The Tribunal observed that merely not mentioning the annexures or not asking for details does not render the order prejudicial or erroneous. The assessee's submissions regarding jurisdiction were not dealt with by the revenue. The Principal Commissioner did not invoke Explanation 2 to Section 263 to substantiate her view that the order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, the Tribunal disagreed with the Principal Commissioner's view without establishing how the order was erroneous or prejudicial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
