Jurisdictional validity: notice issued by a non jurisdictional officer invalidates reassessment where no formal transfer or independent verification o...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5961 to 5980 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 was justified where the AO, after finding purchases to be bogus and goods not received, made disallowance under s.37(1) instead of invoking s.69C read with s.115BBE. Since s.69C applies where an expenditure is claimed but the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain its source, and the factual findings showed the expenditure was unexplained and unsupported by evidence of receipt of goods, the statutory preconditions for s.69C were met. The AO's resort to s.37(1), absent any controversy on commercial expediency, rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the revisionary directions were sustained and the assessee's challenge was rejected - ITAT
The dominant issue was whether revision under s.263 was justified where the AO, after finding purchases to be bogus and goods not received, made disallowance under s.37(1) instead of invoking s.69C read with s.115BBE. Since s.69C applies where an expenditure is claimed but the assessee fails to satisfactorily explain its source, and the factual findings showed the expenditure was unexplained and unsupported by evidence of receipt of goods, the statutory preconditions for s.69C were met. The AO's resort to s.37(1), absent any controversy on commercial expediency, rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; the revisionary directions were sustained and the assessee's challenge was rejected - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
