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...
HC held that the respondent erred in computing the period of limitation from the date of the order under s.143(3); the matter sought to be revised before the respondent concerned the rejection of the appellants' rectification application decided on 9 Feb 2024, and the s.264 revision filed on 14 Jan 2025 fell within the one-year limitation prescribed by s.264. The respondent's conclusion that the revision was time-barred was unsustainable. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent to adjudicate the appellants' s.264 revision application on merits and in accordance with law.
HC held that the respondent erred in computing the period of limitation from the date of the order under s.143(3); the matter sought to be revised before the respondent concerned the rejection of the appellants' rectification application decided on 9 Feb 2024, and the s.264 revision filed on 14 Jan 2025 fell within the one-year limitation prescribed by s.264. The respondent's conclusion that the revision was time-barred was unsustainable. The impugned order is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent to adjudicate the appellants' s.264 revision application on merits and in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
