ESOP expenditure allowed as FMV difference; long-term capital gain issue sent back for collector rate determination; deferred income additions disallo...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The HC held that the AO cannot, by invoking s.154, effect rectification beyond the scope of the s.263 direction and cannot revisit a deduction under s.80IA which was neither the subject-matter of the s.263 proceedings nor of the appeal. Two assessment orders exist: the original order dated 10.02.2005 and the s.263 order dated 20.10.2011. The impugned rectification purportedly altering the 10.02.2005 assessment is time-barred because limitation under s.154(7) runs from 10.02.2005. The rectification order dated 28.03.2012 is therefore barred by limitation, and the ITAT's conclusion computing limitation from the original assessment was upheld.
The HC held that the AO cannot, by invoking s.154, effect rectification beyond the scope of the s.263 direction and cannot revisit a deduction under s.80IA which was neither the subject-matter of the s.263 proceedings nor of the appeal. Two assessment orders exist: the original order dated 10.02.2005 and the s.263 order dated 20.10.2011. The impugned rectification purportedly altering the 10.02.2005 assessment is time-barred because limitation under s.154(7) runs from 10.02.2005. The rectification order dated 28.03.2012 is therefore barred by limitation, and the ITAT's conclusion computing limitation from the original assessment was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
