Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96001 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 upheld the revision order passed under section 263, affirming that the assessment order issued under section 144 ex parte was justified due to the assessee's failure to appear despite proper notice. The Tribunal noted the assessee's challenge to the assessment before the CIT(A), which remains pending. The AO's additions under sections 43B, 68 read with 115BBE, and estimated long-term capital gains were scrutinized, with the PCIT highlighting procedural irregularities in income estimation and the existence of two sets of financial statements. The Tribunal found no error in the PCIT's conclusion that the assessment was prejudicial to Revenue, particularly due to non-consideration of section 45(4). Consequently, the order under section 263 setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing was upheld, and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The ITAT upheld the revision order passed under section 263, affirming that the assessment order issued under section 144 ex parte was justified due to the assessee's failure to appear despite proper notice. The Tribunal noted the assessee's challenge to the assessment before the CIT(A), which remains pending. The AO's additions under sections 43B, 68 read with 115BBE, and estimated long-term capital gains were scrutinized, with the PCIT highlighting procedural irregularities in income estimation and the existence of two sets of financial statements. The Tribunal found no error in the PCIT's conclusion that the assessment was prejudicial to Revenue, particularly due to non-consideration of section 45(4). Consequently, the order under section 263 setting aside the assessment for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing was upheld, and the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
