Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
