Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
