Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
HC allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 passed u/s 264 and remanding the matter to R-2 for fresh consideration. HC held that mere filing of a revenue appeal against a jurisdictional ITAT decision does not dilute its binding nature; revenue authorities must follow such precedent unless properly distinguished with cogent reasons. HC rejected the contention that revision u/s 264 cannot cover issues not claimed in, or accepted in, the return, holding that automatic, unamendable AMT computation in the ITR utility does not amount to conscious acceptance of tax under s.115JC. HC further held that an intimation u/s 143(1) is amenable to revision u/s 264, directing R-2 to reconsider the assessee's claim in light of the jurisdictional ITAT ruling.
HC allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order dated 28.03.2023 passed u/s 264 and remanding the matter to R-2 for fresh consideration. HC held that mere filing of a revenue appeal against a jurisdictional ITAT decision does not dilute its binding nature; revenue authorities must follow such precedent unless properly distinguished with cogent reasons. HC rejected the contention that revision u/s 264 cannot cover issues not claimed in, or accepted in, the return, holding that automatic, unamendable AMT computation in the ITR utility does not amount to conscious acceptance of tax under s.115JC. HC further held that an intimation u/s 143(1) is amenable to revision u/s 264, directing R-2 to reconsider the assessee's claim in light of the jurisdictional ITAT ruling.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
