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...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
