PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the PCIT's revisional order u/s 263. It held that the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 was an "order" independent of the original assessment and was within the limitation period prescribed in s.263(2), hence not barred by limitation. Adequate opportunity of hearing was found to have been afforded through multiple notices and written submissions, satisfying the requirement of s.263, including by electronic mode as per s.2(23C). The AO's failure to disallow delayed employees' PF/ESI contributions, contrary to s.36(1)(va) and binding precedent, rendered the reassessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The ground on customs duty fine/penalty was not pressed and stood rejected.
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the PCIT's revisional order u/s 263. It held that the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 was an "order" independent of the original assessment and was within the limitation period prescribed in s.263(2), hence not barred by limitation. Adequate opportunity of hearing was found to have been afforded through multiple notices and written submissions, satisfying the requirement of s.263, including by electronic mode as per s.2(23C). The AO's failure to disallow delayed employees' PF/ESI contributions, contrary to s.36(1)(va) and binding precedent, rendered the reassessment order both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The ground on customs duty fine/penalty was not pressed and stood rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.