Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Declaration that a taxpayer's return is invalid constitutes an...
Revisability of return invalidation communications under tax procedure affirmed, impugned non revisional finding quashed and matter remitted for fresh consideration.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Declaration that a taxpayer's return is invalid constitutes an actionable directive and is revisable under the tax revision provision; treating a communication of invalidity as not being an "order" was held legally incorrect. The decision reasons that a declaration under the return-validation provision qualifies as a mandate or authoritative direction and therefore falls within revision jurisdiction. The impugned ruling rejecting revisability was quashed and the revision application was restored for de novo consideration, directing fresh adjudication on merits under the revision mechanism.
Declaration that a taxpayer's return is invalid constitutes an actionable directive and is revisable under the tax revision provision; treating a communication of invalidity as not being an "order" was held legally incorrect. The decision reasons that a declaration under the return-validation provision qualifies as a mandate or authoritative direction and therefore falls within revision jurisdiction. The impugned ruling rejecting revisability was quashed and the revision application was restored for de novo consideration, directing fresh adjudication on merits under the revision mechanism.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.