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 held that the revisional authority under Section 264 is competent to rectify bona fide errors committed by the assessee in the return, even after the time for filing a revised return has expired. The impugned order was quashed for erroneously refusing to permit reliance on disclosures related to the profit and loss account on the ground that only the assessee can alter the return particulars. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction under Section 264 extends to correcting mistakes by the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with this principle. The prior refusal to exercise jurisdiction was held to be an error warranting interference.
The HC held that the revisional authority under Section 264 is competent to rectify bona fide errors committed by the assessee in the return, even after the time for filing a revised return has expired. The impugned order was quashed for erroneously refusing to permit reliance on disclosures related to the profit and loss account on the ground that only the assessee can alter the return particulars. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction under Section 264 extends to correcting mistakes by the assessee and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with this principle. The prior refusal to exercise jurisdiction was held to be an error warranting interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
