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 ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held the Revenue's rectification/miscellaneous application under section 254(2) to be not maintainable, directing deletion of the impugned addition of Rs. 21,73,975/-. The Tribunal found the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to be infirm and perverse, having relied on an invalid DVO report and having denied the assessee the benefit of the rate differential between CPWD and PWD rates when valuing the investment property. The Tribunal further applied the HC principle that the limitation period under s.254(2) runs from actual receipt of the ITAT order sought to be reviewed, and, on these grounds, dismissed the Revenue's application.
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and held the Revenue's rectification/miscellaneous application under section 254(2) to be not maintainable, directing deletion of the impugned addition of Rs. 21,73,975/-. The Tribunal found the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to be infirm and perverse, having relied on an invalid DVO report and having denied the assessee the benefit of the rate differential between CPWD and PWD rates when valuing the investment property. The Tribunal further applied the HC principle that the limitation period under s.254(2) runs from actual receipt of the ITAT order sought to be reviewed, and, on these grounds, dismissed the Revenue's application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.