Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
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 
of 4916 
