Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6681 to 6700 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An assessee-trust denied exemption under s.11 sought revision under s.264 against an order appealable under s.246A. The revisional authority could not refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because an appellate remedy existed, since the statute does not mandate exhaustion of appeal where no appeal is filed; accordingly, rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Further, s.264 powers are wide and intended to prevent miscarriage of justice, enabling relief even where the assessee's own mistake in the return caused omission of a legitimate claim; Goetze (India) Ltd. was held inapplicable. The impugned order rejecting the s.264 application for AY 2016-17 was quashed and set aside. - HC
An assessee-trust denied exemption under s.11 sought revision under s.264 against an order appealable under s.246A. The revisional authority could not refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because an appellate remedy existed, since the statute does not mandate exhaustion of appeal where no appeal is filed; accordingly, rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Further, s.264 powers are wide and intended to prevent miscarriage of justice, enabling relief even where the assessee's own mistake in the return caused omission of a legitimate claim; Goetze (India) Ltd. was held inapplicable. The impugned order rejecting the s.264 application for AY 2016-17 was quashed and set aside. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
