Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
