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 HC quashed and set aside an order passed under s.264 of the Income Tax Act, remanding the matter for fresh determination. The Court held that notice under s.148 was never served upon the petitioner's late husband, preventing the Assessing Officer from validly assuming jurisdiction. The Court found that the Commissioner had incorrectly limited the scope of revisional powers under s.264 to mere correction of mistakes in the assessment order. The HC clarified that s.264 confers wide powers on the Commissioner to consider the entire assessment proceedings, conduct inquiries, and pass appropriate non-prejudicial orders. The Commissioner's truncated interpretation of s.264 was deemed contrary to the statutory provision itself.
The HC quashed and set aside an order passed under s.264 of the Income Tax Act, remanding the matter for fresh determination. The Court held that notice under s.148 was never served upon the petitioner's late husband, preventing the Assessing Officer from validly assuming jurisdiction. The Court found that the Commissioner had incorrectly limited the scope of revisional powers under s.264 to mere correction of mistakes in the assessment order. The HC clarified that s.264 confers wide powers on the Commissioner to consider the entire assessment proceedings, conduct inquiries, and pass appropriate non-prejudicial orders. The Commissioner's truncated interpretation of s.264 was deemed contrary to the statutory provision itself.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
