Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT condoned a 267-day delay, admitted the appeal and allowed the assessee's challenge to a revision order under s.263. Holding that the PCIT acted without independent application of mind, failed to appreciate the distinction between substantive and protective assessments and overlooked pending appellate proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the impugned s.263 order and restored the assessment framed by the AO under s.147/ s.143(3). The Tribunal found the addition under s.68 in the related entity's substantive assessment preclusive of revising the assessee's protective assessment, concluded no mala fide conduct or investigation failure, and remitted no further relief; the assessee's appeal accordingly succeeds.
ITAT condoned a 267-day delay, admitted the appeal and allowed the assessee's challenge to a revision order under s.263. Holding that the PCIT acted without independent application of mind, failed to appreciate the distinction between substantive and protective assessments and overlooked pending appellate proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the impugned s.263 order and restored the assessment framed by the AO under s.147/ s.143(3). The Tribunal found the addition under s.68 in the related entity's substantive assessment preclusive of revising the assessee's protective assessment, concluded no mala fide conduct or investigation failure, and remitted no further relief; the assessee's appeal accordingly succeeds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.